Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HansVonStuttgart (talk | contribs) at 11:12, 29 August 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MoneyLead.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyLead

MoneyLead (edit | 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)

Citations look like paid PR articles, no other claim to notability. Google search turns up other similar articles. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole Experience

The Whole Experience (edit | 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:NCORP. The article only cites its list of games and a short overview at MobyGames. I tried finding articles from reliable sources on this company, couldn't find anything. MK at your service. 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawing, self-assessment snow keep (non-admin closure) IgelRM (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate Hong Kong

Liberate Hong Kong (edit | 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 realize this is controversial, but the game doesn't appear to have sufficient independent notability and the primary topic for title would be Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Enderal. After several weeks' discussion, I see this as the most favourable option agreed on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureAI

SureAI (edit | 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)

Appears to fail notability, a timeline of released works. IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are one of the most well-known game modding groups.
The main issue I see is that much of what I added to the history section uses SureAI's self-published timeline as the main reference, but the page was established as notable before I even did this. I think better sources may be needed, but that doesn't qualify this for deletion. TheSmumbo (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain my reasoning, I did not nominate because of the use of self-published sources. I think the article does not go beyond a database entry and I could not find sources to change that. IgelRM (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP. The Eurogamer article is the only one that is significant coverage, not enough to meet notability. The rest are news stories that focus on the games they were developing, not the company. They don't "address the subject of the article directly and in depth". See also WP:CORPDEPTH: There should be "coverage that provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements". All of these news articles are just that "routine announcements", not significant coverage of the company. --Mika1h (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Each article has at least 1-2 paragraphs of coverage of the company. Some have more. Sure, I wouldn't say it's an "obvious keep", but I do think the coverage adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CORPDEPTH: "collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant". --Mika1h (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several paragraphs about the company is nowhere near "trivial". Some of the articles aren't entirely about the company itself, and instead focus on the company's games, but they still offer some significant coverage that counts towards NCORP. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. C F A 💬 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A modding team, that won multiple awards, including The Game Awards for best fan creation (2016), multiple mods of year awards from several publications, now a full game studio with several releases.
    That's like saying Christopher Nolan isn't notable, only his movies are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not, organizations have higher notability requirements than people. Coverage of companies products doesn't contribute to the notability of the company. --Mika1h (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if Mr. Nolan has no sourcing about him, we can't create an article for him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on how much weight we give the Eurogamer feature (which also intends to highlight modding in general). In my view, because the majority of information here can only be gleaned from primary source, a good legacy section on Enderal would make more sense. IgelRM (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a good compromise. TheSmumbo (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Enderal, their most notable project. This is why I don't like the extreme narrowing of CORP that has taken place over the last several years. Yes keeping commercial spam off of Wikipedia is important, but removing coverage of organizations(including one that in this case was originally not for profit) that produce notable products doesn't help our readers if the pages aren't poorly written promos, as this one is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Coverage I find is all about Skyrim mods, I suppose we could have a brief mention there, but there isn't much of anything about this company themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about SureAI themselves. Likewise, [21][22] is a two part interview of SureAI's project lead. Another on RPGWatch [23] and GamerGlobal.de [24]. This is about the future (in 2021) projects of SureAI (i.e. Dreadful River). There's plenty more, i.e. the awards they won etc.... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviewing several of the above linked articles I agree there is sufficient notability and coverage that the subject is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, including the Eurogamer article and others. For clarity - WP:ORGCRIT was explicitly created to require stronger criteria are to "prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals", and I see no evidence of such gaming here. (For the record - I am discounting the Articy articles as these do not appear intellectually independent of the subject). ResonantDistortion 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd go out on a limb and say that they are probably the most famous mod maker of all time. Enderal alone is arguably the best single player mod of all time (and also one of my favourite RPGs of all time), and all 3 of their "mods" are really just fan made games just using the engines of actual for profit software. we have i believe standalone articles for much smaller and less well known video game companies, so deleting this article solely because their games were free and technically considered "mods" by some would be a mistake, in my opinion. Best regards, Kasperquickly (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, and this fails WP:NCORP. Arguing that other companies exist with fewer references is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Note that this is not debating that their games are notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is literally the rule that everyone ignores on wikipedia, because if they didn't, the whole ruleset would fall apart. Reminder, this encyclopedia has a rule specifically mentioning that stuff known for only one event is not notable, yet it has hundreds of individual articles about stuff only known for the Kennedy's murder, including a standalone article about the rifle he's been shot with. Come on. Kasperquickly (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Enderal as per the suggestion above by Eluchil404 seems like the best WP:ATD option considering that the topic company fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. *None* of the sourcing meets the criteria, several Keep !voters have provided sourcing to suggest the company meets the criteria but those sources are either relatively high-level descriptions of the company (therefore failing WP:CORPDEPTH which requires in-depth content about the *company*) or rely on information provided by the company/team (e.g. by way of interviews, thereby failing WP:ORGIND as the *content* is not independent). HighKing++ 12:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Rabbit Studios

Mighty Rabbit Studios (edit | 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)

Appears to fail company notability. Limited Run Games was a division of this according to grepbeat.com, perhaps a redirect? IgelRM (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty rabbit and limited run were originally tied together as companies since limited run began as a division of mighty rabbit but they have more recently have separated into their own separately owned entities after limited run was purchased. where limited run is owned by embracer group, mighty rabbit remains independent. Due to this split, maintaining separate pages would likely be more accurate to their current standing 2603:6081:2100:229:C1A6:D1D4:D485:D2FD (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But Limited Run Games has press coverage for notability, which Mighty Rabbit Studios unfortunately does not have sufficiently. IgelRM (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I'm on the fence regarding G5, but as the AfD has run its course, and there's a consensus to delete, there's no need to adjudicate on the speedy aspect. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix LaHaye

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Video games, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy delete in accordance with WP:G5. This article existed as a many-times-declined (and recently rejected) Draft:Felix LaHaye. After I indef-blocked the creator Isabelle Blake as an undisclosed paid editor, a long-dormant account Captanhook77 suddenly "woke up" the same day and unilaterally copied the draft to article space. This just smells suspicious. If the same person isn't controlling both accounts, it's possibly a group of undisclosed paid editors working together. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no connection to Isabelle Blake, and am not being paid to do this. I am an esports aficionado from Quebec. As we are a small bilingual nation there is not a lot of people in the esports space, and Felix LaHaye has a strong degree of notoriety here, hence my willingness to help create this page.
    The Isabelle Blake article clearly did not meet the criteria, so when I saw it rejected, I decided to create a better article by doing research to find strong sources to support, which I confident I did.
    Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When a draft isn't merely declined but rejected, that means stop, don't go on, look for another subject to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but this is important to our community.
    Lahaye is one of the very few Quebecers that has achieved this level of success in this industry. Just listen to the interviews and see.
    This is important for us, and he definitely matches the criteria. Maybe you don’t know of him, if you are not French Canadian and that’s perfectly ok, but saying he does not is simply inaccurate. I also personally think asking to write about something else because you don’t like the topic is rather rude and inappropriate and does not seem to respect wikipedias mission and criteria for positive discussion.
    Thanks Captainhook77 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Importance to your community is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What matters is our policies and guidelines for inclusion. This discussion has nothing to do with not liking the topic; the nominator and other participants here are indifferent to the topic, we are concerned about compliance with policies and guidelines. The only person making an WP:ILIKEIT argument is you. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Pbrks (t·c) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journal de Quebec and La Presse are both top 5 newspapers in Quebec, which both created profiles on LaHaye, including in print. Similarly, some of the TV coverage highlighted is on Radio Canada, and TVA, in prime time slots, on the most watched programs in the nation. These are some of the main points supporting notoriety criteria being met.
While other elements are more in the realm of "mentions" those are solely provided to support specific elements of activity, which are frequently conducted under the organizations LaHaye leads.
Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
The article has strong sources that are at the top of reputability in Quebec, from the most read newspapers to prime time television coverage. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(They mention La Presse but there's no source there in the article.) None of these satisfy the test of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Journal de Quebec: is not just an interview. Whilst Felix LaHaye is frequently quoted, the most significant facts about Lahaye himself are given by the journalist, whilst LaHaye comments on the evolution of the industry itself.

Here is the La Presse article that I had originally included, which seems to now be missing. I am happy to re-include it: https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/techno/2023-07-05/vie-numerique/attraper-la-generation-z-dans-son-milieu-naturel.php

I am having a hard time understanding how these high notoriety publications would not meet the independence and notoriety criteria, as they are fact checked by the editors. Whilst self interviews, should not "count" as meeting the criteria, it seems clear that given the scope and notoriety and from the direct responses from the journalists there is no doubt here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhook77 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of this article, like the others, is made up of LaHaye's quotes. That's why it can't be used for notability -- it's primarily him talking about himself, not other people talking about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree.
As someone from Quebec familiar with those programs being a frequent guest and having print features does validate a strong degree of notability. Seeing how they talk about him and to him also a strong indicator in my eyes.
Do these articles validate the facts, that would be a separate debate on whether Lahaye has notoriety for Quebecers. Captainhook77 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how Wikipedia defines notability. If the coverage is primarily about what the subject says, that doesn't count. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2603:8001:9500:9E4D:D38:E457:5015:34BA If you are @Captainhook77, please log back in and comment under your username. Otherwise, you are violating WP:LOUTSOCK, which is a form of disruptive editing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging this. I made that comment indeed. Thanks Captainhook77 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please listen to the interviews and read the articles. They are not primarily about what he says. They are mostly high notoriety profiles that match the publication’s formats.
I understand that a lot of it is in French, and if you don’t maybe speak French then it is harder to grasp and that’s ok.
But saying it doesn’t match the notoriety is inaccurate.
I don’t understand why would want to remove something when it is clearly well known in Quebec and that there is more than significant evidence to prove it. Captainhook77 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Golden Rule. Interviews do not count toward notability. Being famous or well known in a local region doesn't matter without significant coverage that is independent of the subject. Notability on Wikipedia isn't the same as famous. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pokémon video games. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémate

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. I'm assuming that the desired target article is List of Pokémon video games, is that correct? It helps to provide a direct link to the target article as there could be other similarly named articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made sure to state the exact article title in the nomination for clarity, but yes, List of Pokémon video games is my suggested AtD target. Admittedly unsure of how to hyperlink while using Twinkle, so apologies about that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon books

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pokémon manga. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure!

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playware Studios

Playware Studios (edit | 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)

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of Mistria

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

  • (article creator) Keep or draftify I've removed Noisy Pixel from the article, considering that most other sources mention same things as them, and added recent RS. TechRaptor, on the other hand, is not listed as an unreliable source, unlike Noisy Pixel. The game has actually been reviewed beyond PCGamer and The Escapist, though they might not be as detailed as those two sources. The amount of coverage it received though, especially for an indie early access game from an unknown studio, is enough to meet WP:GNG standards. If editors think the opposite, I feel like the article should then at least be draftified because it will probably continue getting coverage from RS in the coming period (the game was just released in early access last week), after which the article will certainly be ready for mainspace, if it is not ready now. I do not think that straight up deleting the article will be helpful, considering that it will certainly then be re-created at some point in the future. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the 4 discussions on the site, it was struck out as Unreliable. I'm actually not sure why it's listed as inconclusive. But if people decide otherwise here, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD.
    The game is early access, so you could be right about the WP:TOOSOON. I still think that merits deletion rather than draftification. This is a case where the page should be saved locally until such time it can be rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much disagree, but I'd like to hear opinions from other editors. The game has received better or same coverage as other games listed at Upcoming video games scheduled for 2025. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: As someone who planned to create this article, this game is likely to be notable within the next six months (when drafts get deleted after 6 months of no activity) because the game was just released into early access this month. Currently, Metacritic shows just two reviews, both of which are unreliable. Plus two sources is just under what makes a topic notable and its only been a week since launch (I normally say at least three reliable sources). You can see why I didn't publish it rn but planned to work on it by end of month. The article is much larger than expected also. I have a draft sitting in my userspace about this game JuniperChill (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or ATD to Draftify: It is Too Soon to "Keep". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Would not be against draftifying (ATD) if consensus agrees there might be more than bare notability of a Stardew Valley knock-off in the near future. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at worst Draftify. Disclaimer that I came here after the creator asked for feedback on the quality of the article in the Wikipedia VG project discord. That said, I find the assertion "TechRaptor is unreliable" to be a bit of bunk as it's recognized as inconclusive by WP:VG/S and just had a recent discussion to that end. There are also several other sources independently discussing the subject's early access release such as Siliconera and Destructoid. Probably one concern is WP:SUSTAINED as many of the sources are in a small window of time, but there's at least enough reaction to indicate a degree of notability from it's Early Access release. The absolute worse case is if it fizzles beyond this it can be revisited later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't really an argument why "inconclusive" should be counted as reliable. That means "possibly unreliable" and we should only use sources that are confirmed to have full reliability. There are plenty of games with numerous reliable source articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zx I'm not even going to entertain that argument, you've been with the project long enough to know that's not how that works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Not voting keep because I haven't looked into the sources fully. I don't think there's any reasonable grounds for deletion here - the game has only just released to early access and we already have enough coverage to write a 1000+-word article on it. If it doesn't yet belong in mainspace, the appropriate action is to draftify it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep or Draftify: I voted on Keep or Draftify because the unreliable sources can be change and find anotehr source that are reliable, Although, WP:TOOSOON can be applied here but it was released on Early access on August 5, 2024. I check earlier and TechRaptor and Noisy Pixel are gone on references so that's good. But the article was concisely citated on reliable sources.
I say Draftify because it was so early to create this but since it was on Early Access (i don't see where is in early access) on Steam, I think it is good that is in mainspace now. Royiswariii (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to ROM hacking. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romhacking.net

Romhacking.net (edit | 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)

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

Edit: I didn't give the Kotaku article much thought, which says "Within the community of people who like to hack old video games, it’s a big deal." IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After considering it further, I am changing my !vote to Merge to Rom hack. There still isn't enough SIGCOV to actually detail the site's history, as most of the coverage is mentioning it in the context of its closure. Having coverage to allow for the creation of a fleshed out article is one of the criteria for GNG, and this ain't it - even the creator acknowledges that, or they'd have added it in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street Games

Grove Street Games (edit | 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)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, consider the appropriateness of a Redirect to List of video games published by Rockstar Games (where the subject is mentioned) as suggested by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the redirect: I don't think that's terribly helpful. That article will show up in a search, if someone looks for "Gove Street Games". But I think someone who gets directly linked to that article, having expected an article on Gove Street Games, will be very confused. I'd !vote for deletion of it if it were at RFD on WP:ASTONISH grounds. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I've read every comment and argument here and I just don't see a consensus among the participants and I don't think a third relisting would resolve this. So, I'm closing this discussion as No consensus.

I think there are valid arguments that can be made that this article should be changed to a Redirect, a possible Page Move or a Merger of article content to a different article but I don't see a consensus here to carry out any of those actions which are editing choices that can be discussed on the article talk page. But there does seem to be the opinion that something should happen with this article, either the scope of the article should be better defined or the list pruned of unnecessary items or, as stated earlier, the possibility of merging some content elsewhere. Those decisions can be handled outside of this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi video games

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

  • Comment - I could definitely see this as a useful article. The reader (mainly gamers) would be able to tell which games are more focused on Luigi even if there is no leading "Luigi" title for game (ex. Mario Is Missing!). However I do think it should have been created after there were more than 15 installments, rather than 9. I feel like it leans more on the Luigi's Mansion series for notability. Sackkid (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are definitely a lot of my problems with the current list. There's very few entries, most are unrelated to each other bar a shared protagonist, and it leans heavily on the Luigi's Mansion series as it's the only really notable "series" there. If people want to see what games Luigi featured in, his navbox is still there (Even if that also needs work) or, at worst, this article could be lightly merged into Luigi's article, so that way those interested in seeing Luigi's starring games can find them there. (Not my preferred outcome, but definitely an idea if people feel it worthwhile). Outside of the Luigi connection, these games don't really hold much water as a group, and a guy starring in a set of games does not make that subcategory of games separately notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are we really claiming the Luigi games aren't a spinoff? Seriously? Nintendo even did a Year of Luigi promo which is currently a Good Article. While it's not as large a sub-series as Mario, trying to deny it exists boggles the mind and we certainly aren't hard-up for hard drive space that would necessitate folding it into the Mario series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I literally cannot find sources indicating it exists under one banner, and outside of Luigi's Mansion, the only separate game series I can find relating to Luigi is Mario & Luigi, which is a separate series and not entirely focused on Luigi. As it currently stands, the list is just a miscellaneous assortment of games starring Luigi with no verification of the series' own separate notability. Compare this to something like Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games, which have multiple successful series that can be verified even with a quick Google search. You are right in saying that these games are spin-offs, but they aren't really tied together in a way that shows inherent notability bar happening to be associated with Luigi.
    As a note, Year of Luigi doesn't really focus on the Luigi games as one series, with the games released under that year being variations of pre-existing games. Dr. Luigi is a spin-off of the Dr. Mario series, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is a single entry of the wider Mario & Luigi series, and the various Luigi "remixes" are just variations of pre-existing games. There was a focus on games having Luigi in a starring role, but trying to say that immediately makes a random collection of games notable is like saying Shadow the Hedgehog has his own series because he's had big roles in several games and had a whole year dedicated to him as well. Luigi's Mansion is really the only one here that can be uniquely verified as part of a wider, notable branch of games. A list like this is the equivalent of attempting to make a "List of Pikachu games" and just lining it up with Pikachu's assortment of unrelated spin-off games that aren't branched under one umbrella (Games, for example, like Hey You, Pikachu! and Detective Pikachu (video game) focus on the character, but are not part of an umbrella franchise starring the character like characters like Yoshi and Wario are).
    My problem with this list is not a matter of "trying to deny the Luigi games are spin-offs" or some bizarre thing like that, but rather that this list doesn't verify how the games featuring him are individually notable of the original Mario franchise, nor does it contain sourcing verifying the Luigi games as one major umbrella property like other notable Mario characters happen to have. This list is simply unverifiable. If you or anyone else can dig up sources noting these games are part of one whole umbrella, with notability and description inherently separate from the Year of Luigi or the Luigi character, then I'd be happy to withdraw since I just happened to miss stuff in my search. But right now as it stands, the list just lacks the things it needs to really meet guidelines and justify a split off any other article. I do hope this clears up my viewpoint a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep but I see where the nom is coming from. Luigi is too interlinked with Mario (being his sidequick) to really rise to stand-alone Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games status, but he's also further along than Princess Peach and Toad (Mario) (who both have several games named after them but no sub-franchise article). It seems Nintendo keeps pushing for a new stand-alone franchise, even if it's currently mostly Mansion. Since Mansion doesn't have an overarching series article yet (but could have) and instead hatnote-links to this list, I'd rather keep this list and see where Nintendo takes it, until we can decide how to best present the information. – sgeureka t•c 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidenote, how List of Wario video games is featured and how it is different from Wario (series) doesn't make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is... bizarre. I didn't even know there were separate articles for both of these until now. There's a lot of content overlap there that should probably be merged, but that would require a heavy amount of editing and decision making to accomplish that's not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I can see an argument for there not really being a Luigi series, maybe there's an argument to be made about repurposing it into a Luigi's Mansion series article instead, which is more of a concrete, actual series? Just a thought, currently undecided on what to do personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do agree that something like this might have potential (specifically the potential for a Luigi's Mansion series page), but I'm also agreeing with Pokelego's stance on how to handle this. It's hard to tell what exactly a "Luigi video game" is, and this list has nothing worth saving even in the event a Luigi's Mansion series article, or something on the lines of that, is created. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Luigi's game appearance are covered on Luigi#Appearances and I think the article is below WP standards as is. But considering the Mario franchise has similar lists like List of video games featuring Mario, I don't think the scope of this AfD can resolve anything. IgelRM (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That list very much feels like it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE given it's covering every time a video game happens to feature Mario, one of the most iconic characters of all time who is so frequently referenced and parodied that a list like this seems very useless in terms of use. It feels like it'd be better off rebranded to being a list of Mario franchise videogames, but that feels like a separate discussion that would take place outside of the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Agreed with the nom that there isn't a "Luigi series" and that this list presents original research issues in implying such a series exists apart from appearances of the character. The alternative to deletion is to redirect to the existing section on Luigi appearances, which is what a reader looking for this topic would be least astonished to arrive. czar 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It falls under WP:COMMONSENSE given that all the games both have Luigi in the title and star him as a main character. Original research is going out and confirming something that isn't obvious. We shouldn't be spending time debating whether grass is green or 1+1=2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If these can't be verified as unified group, then it's just a collection of every game Luigi's happened to star in with no other real connecting thread. Yes, we can verify these games happen to star Luigi, but that's not really the point of this. The point is that this list simply is not verifiable as defining what a "Luigi video game" is, nor is it able to show why this subset of games is notable beyond happening to focus on Luigi. The collection of games themselves are not unified by a connecting thread like other Mario series articles, such as Yoshi or Wario, and no sources verify if they can be. This list simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. If there is no "Luigi series" and this is a list of games featuring Luigi, then we should view it as a summary style split from Luigi#Appearances. I don't think the sourcing warrants the split. czar 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This source has Miyamoto referring to the Year of Luigi titles as "Luigi games", which appears to show that their creator views them as a single group even outside the Luigi's Mansion series. That's confirmation enough for me, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but there's no coverage on Luigi games as a group. Most sources that tie to them are tied to Year of Luigi and don't show the games as being independently notable outside of that event, and the fact the games exist does not immediately warrant an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split out Luigi's Mansion series, then delete - it seems to be the only notable series involved here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Czar and NegativeMP1; the Year of Luigi does not demonstrate the existence of a continuous, overarching group of "Luigi games". I find it difficult to believe that Luigi's Hammer Toss and New Super Luigi U are part of the same "series" or are even discussed in any significant capacity as part of the same well-defined group. ― novov (t c) 06:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An alternative to deletion is to really focus on Luigi's Mansion only because that is really a franchise. OceanHok (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lone lead character. It doesn't claim to be a "series", so I'm not sure why the nom thinks that should be relevant. There are plenty of articles that list related media together without them being an actual "series". Not all of the games in List of video games featuring Batman are a part of one series, for instance.128.151.71.8 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I bring up the series argument to show how there is no real explicit reason why this list is notable. A list that consists of games that happen to have Luigi as the protagonist is an indiscriminate collection of information unless sources touch on it. The sources do not support separate notability, neither as a series of games, nor as a collection of games. Also, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have other articles on similar subjects does not mean this list is suddenly exempt from the standards of notability, as there are plenty of similar lists that don't meet standards running around. (I will note the Batman one is pretty low quality- like, it's using GameFAQs as a source, for example. I do feel there's potential grounds to improve that list given Batman itself is a franchise, and Batman has several notable game series, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that. Luigi's list doesn't have much of a hope of improvement bar Luigi's Mansion, which can just be split off from the rest should other editors decide that's beneficial for readers, per the above arguments on the list's contents.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "List of video games featuring X" is different from a "List of X video games". IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that it is literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lead character. Jennysue61884 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Was leaning keep until I saw that that exists. At this time, I agree with Czar's points made earlier about constituting original research. Maybe a Luigi's Mansion article could be created. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I do think this passes WP:NLIST and is broadly talked about as a grouping in enough sources to let it be a standalone article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources? The article has none discussing them as a group and none have been shown in this AfD nor found in any BEFOREs that would verify notability as a group. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though some of it is just about Luigi in general, this article from Nintendo Life does speak about the Luigi games as a group in the "going solo" section. On a side note, responding to almost every differing !vote in a discussion can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONy and not really respecting people's intelligence in being able to create a cogent opinion on a topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to BLUDGEON here. When I do ask questions, I'm asking them in cases where I feel it's valid to inquire further. For instance, here, josh's comment implies sources that have not been acknowledged to this point. If these sources prove notability, it would be good for the whole discussion to see to allow them to make a proper argument on whether this article should be kept or not, as new sources can definitely sway a lot of the discussion.
    I will also note in this discussion that outside of this comment, I have only replied to two other oppose comments. One was the IP's, and the other was yours, which outright tried to dismiss my argument entirely. This required me to elaborate on my points in order to avoid further confusion, as I did not want later participants in the AfD being confused about my rationale for opening the discussion in the first place. A BLUDGEON is "where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." If I were attempting to "force my view," I'd have replied to quite literally every comment without regard for the actual arguments being made, positing the exact same thing, such as my reply to your initial comment, over and over. This would have included nearly every "Keep" vote, or every comment that suggested Redirect over Deletion like my original nomination proposed, which is not the case. I'd appreciate not immediately assuming that I'm acting in bad faith solely because I'm acting as an active participant in the discussion. Either way, I'll try and stick out of replying further in order to avoid complicating the process, as I've clarified my points enough already. In any case, I would still like to see the sources josh is referring to though, since this could potentially bolster the "Keep" side's argument tremendously. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not bludgeoning to ask for sources when a person alludes to sources they haven't actually identified. Hey man im josh can you please clarify your stance? It's causing confusion that I can't help explain. Its not really clear what sources you're referring to when you say you've found sources that satisfy NLIST. I'm not opposed to a keep stance but I having a hard time finding one that doesn't violate VAGUEWAVE so far... Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Pokelego999: What exactly is the reason for deletion? Are you actually saying that there isn't enough coverage on the video games (excluding the Mansion series)? Are you saying there aren't enough installments (excluding the Mansion series)? I re-read the nomination summary but I still do not understand because the point of the article is highlight video games where Luigi is the main character which it appears to be doing. So what exactly is the argument? Sackkid (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to clarify. The problem is not that the article isn't doing its job, but that the article just doesn't really have a valid spin-out rationale. The Luigi "series" isn't really a verifiable series per what sources I could find outside of LM, and Luigi games, outside of being a series, similarly lack sourcing outside of the Year of Luigi, which is more tied to that event than anything else. As such, it falls under something like Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, as Luigi's games cannot be verified as a notable sub-group of games independently of the Luigi character. So yes, it's very much an issue of coverage on the games, barring LM, as well as the installments themselves being largely unrelated outside of Luigi happening to be the main character, with no real sources to verify the notability of these games as a notable group. I hope this clarifies my points a bit more succinctly, but let me know if you need more elaboration on anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me ask this. If take out anything having to do Mario (with the exception of Mario Is Missing!; and treat Mario as a random character in that instance), would you still feel the same way? Because if we take Mario completely out of this, I still think it is a great stand-alone page. I think the lack of sources around the "Luigi's Hammer Toss" and "Mario Is Missing!" come from the fact that it was released in the 90s. But "New Super Luigi U" and "Dr. Luigi" have their own pages. Sackkid (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably would feel the same way, mainly due to a lack of sourcing either way and the fact the page is covering even less subjects than it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Move to Luigi's Mansion (series) and trim other content. I agree with nom that figuring out what a "Luigi game" is is a fraught question that requires high-quality sources that don't seem to exist. However, the existence of a "Luigi's Mansion" series is simple and verifiable, and confirmed in various game journalism outfits along with the obvious of just checking the titles of games in teh series. However there was not consensus found for this proposal in the RM on the talk page (see Talk:List of Luigi video games), so if we're not doing that, then I dunno. Both keeping the article as is, and full deletion, are inferior to my proposal above IMO. SnowFire (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31#Marquis Elmdor. (edit | history)
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Proposed deletions

Redirects

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=1242903534"