Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions[edit]

Manhunt (video game series)[edit]

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

Not a series by WP:VG's consensus: Manhunt consists of two games, without any substantial information about a possible sequel. No other media (books, films, etc.) or merchandise. It just repeats the information from Manhunt (video game) and Manhunt 2. Not worth redirecting, because by all accounts, there shouldn't be any mention of a "series". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per nom; redundant with the articles about the individual games. The Recognition section does not have almost any sources talking about the games as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - As a "series" of two, all this information can (and largely is) be covered in either the first or second game article. The reasoning is comparable to some of the bullet points at WP:MERGEREASON. Sergecross73 msg me 11:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, two games isn't a series. Plus the sources look primary or dodgy, not much third-party commentary. Plus the focus is overly skewed towards controversy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. — Czello 20:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virtual dance[edit]

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

This is not an actual article on the subject of virtual dance (which might well exist), nor even a proper encyclopedia article on the subject of Dance in Second Life, but instead an ancient forgotten essay/how-to guide from 2010 with no useful sources (all of the references are individual dance shows) that belongs on a Second Life fan wiki, not Wikipedia. In the unlikely event someone wants to write an article on this topic a WP:TNT seems warranted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Essay or some sort of OR. I'm not even sure how we'd source this, for Second Life? It needs a TNT at the very least, but I'd just get rid of it. Some strange hybrid of Second Life and an essay on how to program dancing avatars. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete How has this essay survived so long? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would it be 'unlikely' to write or read about this topics on Wikipedia? That seems just an uninformed assumption because there are more than one place where this is a 'hot' item. 2 3 4 That's not to say that I very much liked the format and contents of the lemma as it is or was, but with some others I did my best to give it a broader base to stand on. To at least mention and show a few examples of it, to mention different approaches. Of course it can be (re-)written and enhanced, in many other ways, or a with a renewed title it could include the notion 'in Second Life' to start with...

*Keep and reworke it (probably truncated to a stub, or as a kind of 'gallery page'). IMO A. critisizing the content and format of a lemma and B. marginalizing the topic are two different things. It should be more clearly differentiated why the complete topic or just (parts of the content) need to be removed. I think contributions from members of minority groups like world of art should be welcome and FEEL TO BE WELCOME on wiki. I think that this is of vital importance for the project. Pelikana (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's no obvious choice to me why to want to delete this more open and general lemma on one hand and why to keep the single topic lemma with an ongoing history of blatant SP on the other hand. Nominator will know which one I mean. I think they could be merged and that it is undesirable that every new and coming dance troupe in SL has hers own lemma. Pelikana (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator will know which one I mean. Sorry, what? I clearly don't, nor do I understand the acronym SP, or what you are contrasting this article to (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).

The rest of this comment fares no better; the sources you provided could be used by someone else to write a proper article (some of them do seem notability-building from a quick glance), but that article would bear no resemblance to the essay currently occupying this title so I maintain a WP:TNT at best is warranted.

I think contributions from members of minority groups like world of art should be welcome and FEEL TO BE WELCOME on wiki - this has nothing to do with being welcoming, it's about upholding consistent standards rather than letting articles fall through the cracks. And that's why I think it's unlikely anyone cares - this article received no attention whatsoever in the 2-year period from January 2021 to when I filed this AfD, which is much stronger evidence of unimportance than your speculation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I reworked this lemma. I hope someone can notice and appreciate the changes. thanks. I think my care is evidence enough about the fact that at least one wikipedian cares about the topic. It might be a right speculation that nobody would be eager after deletion and having to start a lemma already prefilled with a text saying : this lemma was deleted before. The text was: delete asap. Pelikana (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now it doesn't meet GNG as there are no RS discussing it, it's basically fan sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this article received no attention whatsoever in the 2-year period from January 2021 He writes only half the truth, as usual. Evidence:pageviews Virtual_dance The page has had visitors. ktxbye.Pelikana (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Median of one, daily average of 3, doesn't really help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original sentence that started this speculation war was In the unlikely event someone wants to write an article on this topic [...] - it was refering to interest from Wikipedians, not interest from readers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess if someone had taken the talk route, it could have become a constructive coöperation instead of a war like needless disturbance on commons while user was available for a dialog. Pelikana (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as their still seems to be a discussion about this possible deletion. This isn't about the nominator or this nomination but whether notability can be established for this subject according to Wikipedia's standards. That's really all that matters in all deletion discussions.

But what the heck is a "lemma"? Please do not use jargon in discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nomader (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I found some small commentary about it. A small article from VentureBeat about virtual dance club in a VR space ([1]), and a couple passing mentions of some clubs in a virtual space ([2], [3]). It's just not really there right now. I could see an article that talks about "emotes" in video games and their rise as being a really interesting subject (in a way that our Emote article doesn't really cover as a subject), but this article here definitely isn't it, and "virtual dance" seems limited to Second Life discussion circa 2005 in passing mentions. It's clear this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: The idea of "virtual dance" as a modern art form is an unquestionably notable topic (ask, and I can provide sources). However, that is not really what this article is about. It is about dancing in Second Life and undoubtedly needs a WP:TNT. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is now a small group of sources on my talk page for a future article after being requested! Why? I Ask (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOR. The subject is probably notable, but would require a full WP:TNT and rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per nomination and WP:TNT. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smoke (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

Minor character that actually fails notability guidelines with lack of third-party sources. GlatorNator (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. All of the reception is trivial mentions and minor gamecruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters per nom. Essentially no notable role in the series since day one. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This will be the 3rd Mortal Kombat character deletion attempt that is currently active. It just seems like some attempt to pull off a WP:GAME. Here's more sources that were somehow unable to be found despite me finding them in seconds: https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/smoke.html, https://altarofgaming.com/character/smoke/, https://legacy.mortalkombatonline.com/content/games/mk3/smoke/, http://mortalkombatwarehouse.com/mk/smoke/, https://screenrant.com/mortal-kombat-smoke-subzero-lin-kuei-cyber-initiative/, https://www.mkcsite.com/portfolio/smoke/, https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2020/nov/24/reptile-ermac-smoke-fatality-mk11ultimate/, https://www.mksecrets.net/mk3/eng/mk3-bios.php, https://www.warnerbros.co.uk/news/articles/2020/12/23/komplete-history-mortal-kombat-part-1, http://www.avoidingthepuddle.com/smoke-mortal-kombat-9-guide/, https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2022/apr/19/mortal-kombat-cut-ending/, https://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com/mk3/smoke/bio/, Smoke clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines on what sources are reliable and what sources are not. Random pages are not proof of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Have you gone through every single source I posted?KatoKungLee (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even from the URLs I can tell that pretty much all of them are primary/unreliable/inadmissible. I don't even have to read them to know that, as it is extremely obvious from where they are located (and from my unreliable sources plugin going into heavier red alert than the Starship Enterprise). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you have not and therefore you don't know.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how "I read the URL's" equates to "I have not". If a source is inadmissible per WP:RS, what is in it is not going to change anything about the situation. Being disruptive, childish and hostile is not going to help your case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KatoKungLee, you are being disruptive across-the-board in these AfDs. You should know that "mortalkombatwarehouse.com" or "mksecrets.net" or "mkcsite.com" clearly do not help in establishing notability. Go check out WP:VG/RS for what are considered reliable sources before asking others to check your clearly subpar search results. It's not helping your case and it's detrimental to the process. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are not viable sources in the slightest. They’re either primary (Warner Bros., who happens to own the franchise, and sites with “MK” in the domain name) or deemed unreliable (EventHubs). I advise you take a look at What is and is not a reliable VG source? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kabal (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

Like many other lesser Mortal Kombat characters, no longer meets general notability standards due to lack of viable third-party coverage. Should be redirected to the MK character article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/Redirect To List of Mortal Kombat characters. Very minor character with an unnecessary spinout - merits only a list entry. The reception scrapes the bottom of the barrel of fancruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meaningless comment It’s not so much an unnecessary spinout, but more about how Wiki standards for VG notability have evolved over the years (the Reptile article just had its GA status rightfully revoked), plus time has simply not been kind to the midcard MK characters. What was considered good reception back in the day is now outdated and superficial, hence a lot of MK character articles getting the ax as of late. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a spinout - it was merged in 2008 and spun back out in 2012, then went back and forth until it was permanently spun out in 2014 with a massive expansion (of cruft). At that point, guidelines for notability were well established. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge - per above. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Kabal per above. –Vipz (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and there's a lot more sources out there (only if you look for them though). Not real sure what the sudden interest in MK character deletions is, but Reptile, Shinnok, Smoke and Baraka are either all now up for deletion or just passed it. Is every MK character going to be nominated?KatoKungLee (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vast majority of them do not seem to be notable for anything besides a mention at List of Mortal Kombat characters and their sources were heavily WP:REFBOMBed to give the false appearance of notability. I would expect most of them to not withstand an AfD. There is the odd character like Mileena who may be notable in their own right, though her article would not really stand up to modern Good Article standards and needs a massive pruning in parts to remove all the "So and so ranked her 12th on the hottest female characters list" sentences. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A mere claim to notability with no corroborating evidence other than "sources exist" is not sufficient. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a database of video game characters. Evidence of notability needs to be provided. Please list your best three sources that demonstrate notability and I will change my submission to keep. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The “there’s sources out there” argument bugs the [expletive] out of me. If someone thinks there are sources out there for an article on the chopping block, then for Pete’s sake, they need to go find them. I cleaned up the article several months ago, which doesn’t make me special, but there were simply no new viable sources out there. And no, not every character will be put up for deletion, which would be overkill. Baraka had been tagged for notability since last November following the first rash of redirects. For being the mega franchise MK is, unfortunately it’s either feast or famine in regards to coverage of the characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shinnok[edit]

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

Minor MK character fails notability. Most of the sources at the reception are just awful. GlatorNator (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters, another unjustified spinout. (Or just restore what I assume was there before the split). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. This is a hard one since I restored and rewrote the article years ago and was getting ready to go back in there and clean it up. However, I've realized that nothing has really changed about him in subsequent series appearances since then, despite being the Big Bad in MKX. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - As with the Baraka nomination, I do have to ask how much effort GlatorNator is putting into these "failed Google searches" - https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baraka_(Mortal_Kombat). Here's some other sources that were somehow unable to be found in OP's attempt, yet were found in seconds by me - https://www.giantbomb.com/shinnok/3005-405/, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/MortalKombatShinnokAndQuanChi, https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/shinnok.html, https://altarofgaming.com/character/shinnok/, https://www.cbr.com/mortal-kombat-shinnok-good-lame-bad-guy/, https://www.warnerbros.co.uk/news/articles/2021/01/06/komplete-history-mortal-kombat-part-2, https://www.mksecrets.net/index.php?section=mkx&lang=eng&contentID=7929&title=Mortal-Kombat-X-Characters-Bios, https://primagames.com/tips/mortal-kombat-x-how-play-shinnok-combos-and-strategies, https://screenrant.com/mk11-aftermath-kronika-shinnok-mortal-kombat-time-powers/. The character obviously passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read WP:USERG and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE as this is demonstrating a basic lack of knowledge about policies. It would not be so bad if you didn't continue to post unusable sources in discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Have you gone through every single source I posted?KatoKungLee (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KatoKungLee, please stop bludgeoning these MK AfDs with barrages of external links that clearly do not meet VG notability requirements, and I'm more than familiar with the sources listed. Where to begin: The Giant Bomb page is nothing more than a glorified wiki. TV Tropes is entirely user-submitted content. Fighters' Generation is a fan-created character database. Altar of Gaming is a nonviable VG source. Gameplay guides and "about character X" by niche gaming sites do not establish notability. Warnerbros.co.uk is a primary source. MK Secrets...'nuff said. Lastly, since you mentioned it, I searched for sources for Baraka months ago under various additional keywords and came up empty. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baraka (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

This article has been like this since I was new. I tried to find reliable sources about him or what you call "third party sources", but unable to. GlatorNator (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters due to lack of, you guessed it, viable third-party coverage. I was going to nominate this but you beat me to it. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I warned that this would be happening when the attempt on deleting Reptile's article failed - https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reptile_(Mortal_Kombat). The intent may not to be WP:GAME, but that's basically what's happening here as the article was written over several years and many of the people involved are no longer on the site to try and defend it. Here's some extra sources, though I truly believe the goal is just to get these articles deleted: https://dashfight.com/mk11/characters/baraka-471, https://altarofgaming.com/character/baraka/, https://www.giantbomb.com/baraka/3005-64/, https://www.fanbyte.com/games/guides/baraka-guide-mortal-kombat-11-character-strengths-weaknesses-fatalities/, https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters/baraka.html, https://www.shacknews.com/article/109419/baraka-returns-for-mortal-kombat-11-character-roster and https://www.cbr.com/mortal-kombat-anatomy-baraka/. I'm also very interested to hear how the links I posted were unable to be found by GlatorNator in a Google Search, yet I could find them in seconds. Am I just that much better at Googling? KatoKungLee (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we are in full knowledge of such sources already. They are just inadmissible for Wikipedia due to being user generated or content-farms that do not prove notability. You can't just take literally any page from the internet and use it as evidence for an AfD discussion regardless of provenance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Have you gone through every single source I posted? Who is, "we"? You are not speaking as part of some group, but as an individual user, correct? KatoKungLee (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am referring to the other Wikipedians who have already put their opinion about the AfDs in question without raising an objection. I am obviously one person, but I have been on Wikipedia long enough to consider myself part of the wider community. You are throwing around many highly charged allegations, like the fact that people are somehow out to get these articles in particular, and this is not just a routine cleanup. Please do not make accusations without any sort of evidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Darren Korb[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The entire article is sourced to trivial mentions from reviews of the games he composed/voice-acted for, or primary coverage interviews. I suggest merging to Supergiant Games, which he is predominantly known for as its main composer and one of its voice actors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep/Comment. I'm struggling to see how Korb fails GNG. Primary coverage interviews are valuable. I'm supposing you're talking about these sources

* https://web.archive.org/web/20150708231904/http://videogamewriters.com/interview-darren-korb-64357

* https://kotaku.com/the-best-game-music-of-2011-bastion-5871695

* https://web.archive.org/web/20150209221752/http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/grammys-soundtrack-category-has-yet-to-embrace-video-game-scores/

I don't see how if a composer and his soundtrack work on video games is so acclaimed that he garners interviews in a high-profile gaming-related source deemed reliable (Kotaku) and a high-profile general news source (LA Times), that those interviews somehow shouldn't count as far as helping establish notability (?)... but, here are a couple more reliable sources that go beyond "trivial mentions from reviews of the games" and also are not interviews:

* https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/26/5751006/transitor-soundtrack-new-genre-old-world-electronic-post-rock

* https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-music-of-transistor-in-the-key-of-red/1100-6420099/

Those are the ones already included in the article.

I didn't have to search much at all to find these, which I guess I'll spend the weekend and/or Monday & Tuesday incorporating into the article. Please note, I'll have to sift through these to see which ones can actually be suitable for the article and where exactly to place them within it, but the sheer amount of them should give you some sort of insight as to the fact that there is actually a lot to work with here. I included dates for my own reference for when I go through them:

Reference ideas for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Judging off of really quick glances at the headlines for these articles, it seems like Korb's contributions are heavily praised aspects of the games he has scored, and that includes a good amount of industry award nominations/wins. Some of these sources are award nomination listings. Aside from those, I'm sure some of the other sources only include a passing mention of Korb, but that's probably not the majority of them. And even then, those sources would likely provide great supplemental information for the article (I don't think that's a hot take either). I will definitely concede this article needs a considerable amount of reworking and polishing. But I'm really failing to grasp how the subject does not meet GNG. Hopefully once I incorporate the above sources into the article, that'll help. Soulbust (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a load of WP:REFBOMBing and little of actual substance. The very fact that you had to list all of these sources instead of a few actually pertinent ones shows that you are trying to impress by sheer amount rather than what they actually contain. Many of them have almost nothing.

I would suggest listing the WP:THREE best possible sources that prove the article is notable rather than trying to make people too lazy to look through them and take you at your word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should also point you towards WP:PST since apparently you believe an article can rest solely on interviews as proof of notability. Specifically the first sentence, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not why you are trying to assert that I'm "trying to impress by sheer amount", when I literally said I would sift through the sources personally to see what can be used. I only listed the sheer amount to display that there is a likelihood of "actual substance" as you put it. I'm not trying to make anyone look "too lazy" either; as I said: "Please note, I'll have to sift through these to see which ones can actually be suitable for the article and where exactly to place them within it, but the sheer amount of them should give you some sort of insight as to the fact that there is actually a lot to work with here." So again, please note that. Also I have no idea how you discerned in a little over an hour that most of theses 29 references I listed above "have almost nothing". I can't say I'll be able to go through them that fast as I'll be going through them carefully and thoroughly, but thanks for pointing me towards those guidelines. I also never said I believe an article can rest solely on interviews, only that "Primary coverage interviews are valuable" and that those interviews help establish notability. Thanks. Soulbust (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You sort through the sources before using them in an AfD unless you are trying to short-circuit the entire proceedings. Just dumping a list of random sources here doesn't help anything in the slightest and makes things more confusing for everyone, especially if none of them turn out to be WP:SIGCOV. Maybe wait until you have a leg to stand on before trying to say the nomination is wrong, rather than making ad hominem arguments about how it's impossible for me to read sources or analyze them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said "many of them have almost nothing". I simply pointed out how I didn't understand how you could make that assertion so soon, considering just how many sources there were, not an attempt at ad hominem. If you were able to go through them that fast, then cheers. I wish I could do that. I'm not trying to short-circuit any proceedings. I also give editors weighing in on this AfD all the faith that they can understand where I am coming from in my listing of those references. I'll move them to the article's talk page. I would also remove them from this discussion, but will leave them for now to not remove any context. Soulbust (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note for transparency: I condensed the listing of references into a ref ideas template so it's easier to digest going forward. All references I initially listed are still listed. Soulbust (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've incorporated a good chunk of those references into the article. Some of them definitely didn't have any real place in the article. Some of them were of the more supplemental nature I mentioned earlier. But all in all, the article is now fleshed out a good amount and I'm even more of the opinion now that it establishes GNG. There is definitely SIGCOV in there, with sources past just interviews. There is obviously still some room for improvement, but I think this is past a keep or delete situation. Will continue to improve article later in the week if possible. Soulbust (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you single out some that provide significant coverage to the subject itself please. We're here to establish notability through significant coverage of reliable sources, not every passing mention in existence. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per these three sources: "Hades’ Godly Soundtrack Is A Natural Evolution For Supergiant’s Darren Korb", "Transistor soundtrack creation saw vocals recorded in wardrobe and the birth of a new genre", "Darren Korb, The Musical Mind Behind The Hades Soundtrack". I'll even throw in an extra one: The Music of Transistor: In The Key of Red. In addition, his music appears on many of the "Best of" lists which (while not often significant coverage) do good to establish notability in his field. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: He also won two 2011 Spike Video Game Awards for Best Song and Best Score and was nominated at The Game Awards 2014 and The Game Awards 2020 for Best Score. Clearly, WP:ANYBIO is met for that. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the words: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Why I Asks sources above. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes no sense. His name gets title dropped, but the significant coverage is not there. Unless notability is how many times you get mentioned in the title of an article, I can't imagine that qualifies for the WP:SIGCOV criterion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read the articles with my own eyes. He's discussed throughout the articles. It's going to be an uphill battle for you to convince people of it being a "passing mention" when he's name dropped in the article titles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it though? The articles describe the songs, not Korb himself. It literally only says the songs were made by Korb. If you're looking to prove the music of Hades or Transistor is notable, that's one matter, and it would support the existence of a Music of Hades (video game) article, but that doesn't prove Korb himself is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guidelines are nice and useful but I really think there's just an eye test aspect to this particular case. Especially now, after the contributions I made to the article last night - I think if one were to go through this article, they can see he has the tangible industry award recognition, as well as subjective critical acclaim to all of his works. This establishes GNG and is covered by sources in a way that meet SIGCOV. I don't quite love the idea of WP:THREE. I get that three is easier to sift through for an AfD discussion but it seems like an arbitrary mark to hit. That being said, I think the three listed above by Why? I Ask work well. I would additionally note this source: Pyre's Composer On The Challenges Of Creating His Most Diverse Game Soundtrack Yet (Kotaku). It includes some quotes from Korb, but it isn't a straight up Q&A-formatted interview source.

And in regard to the suggestion that it's his songs and not himself that is earning the coverage: I think in a lot of the referencing, it's actually his work or style on the songs. There's a lot of sourcing on the specific instruments and sonic palettes he uses in the soundtracks. And it isn't just Transistor and Hades. His work on Bastion has also received comparable levels of coverage and acclaim. And because he serves as the audio director for the games, his contributions to things like sound effects and voice recording are also to be included; and they are, cited by reliable sources in the article. It's also of note that his voice acting as the main character of Hades has been covered. An example of SIGCOV of that work includes: this Vice source. Soulbust (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I will reiterate that an article on the games' music is probably notable. There are numerous such articles for many games and movies that have standout soundtracks. But notability is not inherited. This entire article is essentially taking the notability of the music and voice acted roles he made and attributing it to Darren Korb the person. But the soundtrack is what is notable here and is what the articles are about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get that notability isn't inherited but that criteria says "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject."" And I just don't think that applies to Korb. It would make more sense to say that of his work, i.e. "this soundtrack album does not have inherited notability just because it was made by Korb." I would also disagree with that, but it would make more sense to me. Like, what "other, legitimately notable subject" that Korb worked with is the subject that is somehow making Korb inherit notability? Because it can't be the games... because his work with Supergiant was as their audio director and composer, and later voice actor - and that work is a big factor as to what makes the games so acclaimed.

Darren Korb the person happens to be a composer, and his work as a composer happens to have garnered him much coverage in reliable sourcing. To me, this is like saying Tyrese Haliburton the person isn't notable outside of his work as a basketball player. Also in your response to @Sergecross73:, you questioned the articles as describing the songs, not Korb himself. This is untrue. I'm assuming we are discussing the articles that @Why? I Ask: listed. The VGR source is about Korb, and doesn't mention a song in specific. Same goes for the Polygon source, which discusses Korb's process when he approaches composing. Yes that is an aspect of his work, but it's closer to coverage of him as a composer than of his compositions. Soulbust (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the journalists believed Korb himself was worthy of note, they would have done a profile on the person. Instead, they simply discussed only the music and the process of the music's creation. This indicates to me that the music is what they believed to be important, and Wikipedia should reflect that.

To show an example of the opposite, here is some significant coverage of Nobuo Uematsu from Time magazine. It mentions FF in passing, but mostly focuses on him. I wouldn't debate that demonstrates he is notable. It's possible the VGR article rises to that level, but it does not seem like a reliable source and was obviously tossed into the mix in a desperate attempt to find something that actually talks about him more specifically. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several interviews that sketch out profiles of Korb (especially his two in Nintendo Life [4][5]). (And yes, interviews can count toward notability per WP:INTERVIEW.) Why? I Ask (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the assertions in WP:INTERVIEW. However, I disagree that those Nintendo Life interviews have sufficient transformative thoughts to not be trivial, as stated by the essay. They are mostly lists of questions and answers, making them primary sources. I have not noted an interview with enough independent analysis of the person to be a viable secondary source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You shifted from trying to say the articles only discuss the songs (which again wasn't true). Now it's that only his music, as opposed to him, is notable. And I don't understand what you're trying to say by trying to interpret the journalists' intents? I could as easily say they think Korb is worthy of note, and that since he is a vg composer they're going to cover his composition work (and voice acting work when applicable).

When I listed 29 sources, saying I would sift through them and see which were suitable for this article, you said I was trying to impress with the sheer amount. Now, 3 sources get listed by another editor (as per your request to mention WP:THREE sources) and you call one of those sources a desperate reach? Okay, what about the other 2 (or the bonus one added by Why? I Ask)? or the bonus one I offered?

FWIW, I would argue that that Time source helps establish notability for Nobuo Uematsu. Soulbust (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment:

Since the argument is being made that a theoretical "Music of Hades" article would be cool over an article for Korb, I went through the listing.

I had an extremely long chunk of text breaking down that listing, going through exclusions from that list and why I was excluding them. But I'm gonna try my best to condense it. Basically, my point for that was centered around any applicable article on that list (A: individual soundtracks, either obviously so reading the title of an article (Diablo II Soundtrack) or otherwise (Fleeting Colors in Flight), B: Music of [individual game] articles (like Music of The Last of Us). I understand that "other stuff exists" but y'know.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the composers, for the soundtracks discussed in those "Music of [x]" articles or something like Halo 4 Original Soundtrack, have their own articles. Whenever there is a composer that doesn't have an article, there's always a but scenario. And that scenario is usually they aren't the sole or lead composer like Korb is (i.e. Bill Helm for RDR - Helm did not return for RDR2 but RDR's co-composer did); this sort of scenario includes cases where composers only contributed additional or DLC compositions.

Basically, at the end of the day: Each sole composer of a game's soundtrack which has its own article on Wikipedia has an article of their own. And the overwhelming majority of these composers only have 1 such game that has its own "Music of [x]" article. Korb, with Bastion, Transistor, and especially Hades would potentially - and uncomfortably - have up to 3. Soulbust (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was using that as an example of actual SIGCOV, although I think this argument is going nowhere. There's definitely a disagreement that's completely impossible to reconcile as to what exactly counts towards notability here, so others will have to weigh in. FWIW, I don't think it's that peculiar to have 3 articles on his music without having an article himself, being a composer in a niche indie game field whose music was just critically received incredibly well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I misread/misunderstood your comment "I wouldn't debate that demonstrates he is notable." But I think some of the sourcing on Korb is akin to that example you provided in it meeting SIGCOV. Soulbust (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A reminder that there's currently no one advocating for deletion beyond the nominator so far, so you dont really even need to be thinking of alternatives like this... Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured it wouldn't hurt to address it, but that's fair yeah. Soulbust (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per everyone else's arguments and rationales. The coverage surrounding this individual and his accolades are not subjective opinion, but objective facts. Uphill battle indeed. Haleth (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jen Zee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The entire article is sourced to trivial mentions from reviews of the games she made artwork for, or primary coverage interviews. All the sources are about the development of Bastion or other video games rather than directly being about the subject and the info would most likely be better off in their respective development sections. I suggest merging to Supergiant Games which she is predominantly known for, with pretty much all mentions of her being in the context of her work at that studio only. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: For full transparency, I'm the author of the article and asked Zxcvbnm to bring the article to AfD after he redirected it. I also would ask that if the article is deleted, it should be redirected to Supergiant Games. It's a reasonable redirect target, and the history would be kept in case she either got more coverage (and we can use the work I've done here and easily move it into other places). That said, I feel that she meets WP:GNG already today per my arguments below:

Per WP:NARTIST, 4c says, "won significant critical attention." I'd argue that a BAFTA for Artistic Achievement that was awarded to well, her specifically, definitely and easily qualifies for it, and the deluge of critical reception that calls her out by name specifically is rare in video games. Her win was actually the reason that I created this article (most other winners had their own pages). She was also (on her own as a credit) nominated for a DICE award as well.
I'd argue that although interviews are the main part of the articles that are more about "her", they do feature commentary about her work as well (in a way a straight interview article normally wouldn't) and pass WP:SIGCOV. Examples include, but are not limited to: [6], [7], [8].
The mentions are also extremely extensive in reviews and repeatedly call her out by name in a way that is extremely uncommon in the video game medium. At a certain point, once someone has enough coverage like this where they're constantly, I think it has to qualify. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].
Lastly, and this is an ignore all rules argument: we suck at covering women in Wikipedia (although we're making more progress on it). And for video game development, artists are commonly one of the largest categories where female staff is dominant, but coverage is often lighter because articles come out highlighting their work instead of diving into it (see two random examples I quickly pulled here: [14], [15]). We have an example of an award-winning female artist in her field, and although a portion of this content could (and should) be covered at the company page, this is the exact sort of thing that we should find a way to cover individually at Wikipedia. Nomader (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be sure, an "ignore all rules" argument would make more sense if this artist were just scooching up to the notability line and had a couple of significant articles to her name. Maybe it wouldn't normally be quite enough but that could be waived to ensure there was no bias.

But, this situation is not that. There is no significant coverage at all, just a bunch of shout-outs. The Transistor review in The Mary Sue name-checks the artist and that's it. Any suggestion she is notable is simply wishful thinking. The interview articles are, well, almost entirely about the game's design, rather than the artist. They belong in the development section of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the large number of interviews that she's done in notable publications, the coverage that her work has received, and the awards that she has been given and nominated for make her pass WP:GNG and are far past shout-outs and passing mentions. I want to avoid needlessly refbombing this discussion with more refs, but I encourage editors who are thinking about which way to !vote to review the scale of the references in the article and the many pieces that both focus on her work (and her) along with the BAFTA award and DICE nomination pieces before making a decision. Nomader (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Sourcing shows she clearly falls under WP:CREATIVE's #3, at minimum, and thus we don't have to worry about the GNG at this time. That allowance means there's need to expand out, but per standard AFD rules, this doesn't have to be done "now". --Masem (t) 02:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Nomader laid out a good case as to why she meets notability criteria for creative professionals, and Masem made some good points about AfD rules and where an expectation of a deluge in coverage, so to speak, is not necessary for this particular subject. The nominator's rationale is noted, but not accepted. Haleth (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep She meets our guidelines for notability. Nomader has made a case for the bio meeting WP:GNH and Masem has shown that she meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Bruxton (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle for Donetsk[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable browser and mobile game created in 2015 which was highlighted in Russian sources like Sputnik ([16]) and RT ([17]), along with an International Business Times article ([18]), all of which are blacklisted per WP:RSP (in ways they weren't back in 2015). A Ukranian-language DW article ([19]) is just a straight interview with the developers and a small Popular Science blog post about it ([20]) exists too -- neither are enough to pass full muster at WP:N in my opinion (although I could see an argument to keep if more sources were found).

There was no coverage in anything from WP:VG/RS (actually no hits, which is surprisingly rare), no newspaper coverage, and nothing in Google Books. Nomader (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Ukraine. Nomader (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The NESkimos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The standards of inclusion for bands have changed since the 2006 deletion discussion that arrived at "no consensus" for this article. The previous AfD found a blurb in the Orlando Weekly and an interview as part of the segment and a bit of the subject for a The Legend of Zelda spot on MTV's "Top Video Games Countdown" ([21]).

I only found one direct interview at a source from Destructoid that only situationally meets WP:VG/RS ([22]) and the rest are a series of passing mentions that don't meet the criteria ([23], [24], [25], [26]). If there was an argument to keep, it could be #12 from WP:BAND, but they weren't really the focus of the segment.

Would love your thoughts! Nomader (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Video games. Nomader (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Interviews are not coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brian Grainger[edit]

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

I originally PROD'd this article, but found that there had been another PROD that hadn't been marked in the history on the talk page way back in 2014 ([27]). The article was not brought to AfD after that point. My reasoning was:

"Although there are some passing mentions of Grainger inside reviews of Eufloria, none of them make him notable per WP:NBASIC and WP:SINGER. Other articles cited in this page do not make any mention of Grainger at all." Nomader (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. Nomader (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Joyous! Noise! 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blacknut[edit]

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

Non-notable business, sourced only to Linked In. Only items I find are PR pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This source is WP:SIGCOV, but the company otherwise falls short of WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

List of video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Nearly all major game released these days will have their soundtracks uploaded to some music-streaming platforms. The list also relies excessively on primary sources (e.g. Twitter), and most of the sources in the articles are WP:ROTM announcements that provide no meaningful commentary as to why its release on a streaming platform is important. A brief paragraph in the video game music article would probably be sufficient to cover this topic, and I don't see the necessity of having a list. OceanHok (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per precedents found through consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl (2nd nomination). And while I largely tried to avoid first party sources when I created the article, and would work towards replacing them, looking through the article, there are plenty of third party sources discussing the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:LISTN satisfying sources:
Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 of them are ROTM announcements. They tell me several Capcom games and FF games are coming to Spotify, but none of them is WP:SIGCOV. I do not think GameSpot really intend to discuss streaming in its listicle as well. It simply tells you where you can stream (and therefore access) "the best video game soundtracks". GameSpot and IGN sometimes provided links to retailers, telling readers where you can buy or pre-order certain games. That doesn't mean we should create an article named "List of video game you can buy through Amazon".

If the main point of the article is to tell readers video game soundtracks on streaming platforms are rare, then the list does not show that. It appears to be a very common occurence. If the main point of the article is to tell readers that every single game these days has their soundtracks released through streaming platforms, then there is no necessity for such a list. If the SIGCOV part of the article is about Japanese developers being unwilling to release soundtracks through streaming platforms, then a list listing nearly all western games to have ever existed since 2010 is also not appropriate. It is a simple phenomenon bloated into a gigantic list. I still don't see the necessity of having this massive dynamic list that is always going to be incomplete as well. (Despite the effort of maintaining such a list, there are a lot of missing entires (e.g. FIFA17 to FIFA 19, a bunch of Call of Duty, Far Cry 4 not being listed despite the inclusion of both FC3 and FC5). This just highlights how unimportant and trivial the whole thing is. If a soundtrack's release through streaming platforms is so important, then there should be significant coverage from our RS each time it happens.) OceanHok (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, those articles are standard WP:MILL announcements. They do not indicate the idea of releasing on a streaming service is particularly noteworthy, just alerting people that soundtracks are on streaming. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per WP:OLIST as a list that is too time consuming to keep updated and serves no encyclopedic purpose besides advertising. The ephemeral nature of streaming music means the list needs an outsized amount of effort and is constantly changing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Sergecross comment because this article for the longest time is really helpful because not every game has a soundtrack on streaming services, and it goes to show how much there was a demand for VGM on streaming services for a long time. Its the same thing with vinyl as well. NakhlaMan (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. This is one of those lists that could've been about a narrowly defined topic early in the history of streaming, but since streaming is just the default way of releasing any music these days, it's become more or less meaningless. Like a list of music released on CD in the 90s or a list of movies released in theaters (but even more extreme than the latter). There is sourcing that would fall into two categories: sources from years ago when streaming wasn't the default, and the equivalent of "what's on Netflix this month" roundups. Years ago, when studios put an entire TV show's catalog on Hulu, it was novel. Now, a "list of TV shows on streaming platforms" would be a similar SALAT problem. In other words, if a video game soundtrack is released, it's released on a music streaming platform. We can't keep a list of them all. Beyond that, this isn't actually a list of soundtracks; it's a list of video games. That makes it a step more problematic per WP:CSC compared to a list TV shows available to stream because in nearly all cases we don't actually have an article on the subjects themselves. Not sure what I think of the vinyl article, but at least that's a much smaller group because releasing a soundtrack on vinyl is relatively unusual. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This content would be better served in an encyclopedic format. I think that Sergecross73 has done a terrific job of showcasing that it's notable enough that it receives coverage, but Wikipedia is not and cannot be an indiscriminate collection of information, and at this point, saying what's on Spotify would basically be the same as saying "all video game music except for Nintendo" nowadays. The vinyl examples don't fly here, because that is a clearly definable and limited category, where this would be essentially every music made in modern gaming. The content and the sources would be better served by discussing it in an encyclopedic format at video game music. Nomader (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or Weak Delete: Both List of game soundtracks released on X articles strangely use the medium as a differentiator. These should be List of game soundtracks released standalone. We could split this into digital and physical lists but in my opinion a merged list would be most useful. (Side note, why do publishers use vinyl records instead of normal CDs?) IgelRM (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites. Also, the lead suggests a narrower scope than the list title does; "on music streaming platforms," interpreted plainly, means virtually any soundtrack in existence that someone put on YouTube. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was meant to document official soundtrack releases. Vast majority of YouTube uploads are unofficial fan uploads. Much like List of PlayStation Portable games doesn't include homebrew games or the hundreds of Sega Genesis games fans have made unofficially available to play on it from downloading emulators and roms off the internet. This distinction is generally assumed in the video game content Wikipedia, though the distinction could easily be pointed out should this article avoid deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The LucasArts Archives[edit]

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

While I am not certain where it should go if anywhere, this compilation does not seem independently notable or critically/commercially important. They consist only of previously released games that all have their own articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've added some sources to the article. Timur9008 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While definitely an attempt, it doesn't convince me that there is significant coverage out there, much less anything differentiating the compilation from its games. It seems trivial coverage is trivial coverage regardless of whether it's in print or on the internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Lucasfilm Games. Based on the meager available secondary sourcing, this content would fit best within context of the parent article about the developer. czar 21:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect or merge to Lucasfilm Games barring more coverage in sources. The sales tidbit (in Reception) can at least be merged, regardless of how the list of games relates to WP:NOTCATALOGUE.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Lucasfilm Games. I did a search for additional sources and didn't come up with anything else that notable here. The only piece that seems worth merging is that this release happened and the sales note, otherwise I would have marked this as a redirect. Nomader (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quest for Saddam[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the copious sources that mention it are as a passing mention on the game Quest for Bush and on Wafaa_Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" modification of the Bush game, both of which received extensive coverage (unlike this game). Examples include: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. There is nothing to merge to either article, so a straight delete should be fine here.

There's a somewhat odd story behind this nomination. Back in 2015, I was one of the only participants in an AfD for Quest for Al-Qa'eda, and I suggested that this article also be nominated for deletion. I'm following through on that nom 8 years later today. Nomader (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nomader (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Found these sources. [37], [38], [39] [40] . Apparently, there was some coverage of the game on FOX News and CNN according to the last source. Timur9008 (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thanks for digging these up (I'm slightly embarrassed I didn't do a newspapers.com search before nominating, so thanks for doing it). Worth flagging that the first two are press releases/market wire releases. The quote at the top of the site clearly seems to be sarcastic or a joke as well, but there was an interview on MSNBC that's definitely worth flagging here. I looked into all three of the networks listed on the site below. Nomader (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - MSNBC did a full interview segment (!!) with the creator of the game. It's pretty wild honestly. At one part the anchor says, "all these publications and reviewers are calling you a legit designer! They're saying, was it Wired magazine, Game Informer, Computer Games magazine, Gamingrevolutions.com, they're giving positive reviews of this game" -- but I've found none of these. Searching now. [41]
  - Fox News mention is passing, in the context of Virtual Jihadi, and doesn't contain any reviews of the show. [42])
  - CNN gave it a brief passing mention in 2003 on Wolf Blitzer's show in a "look at other headlines around the world segment." It featured a tiny clip of gameplay and the following commentary: "Quest for Saddam" is debuting at the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles. The creator is just 19-years-old." Other CNN sources only mention it in the context of the Bush game ([43], [44]).
    - I'm still standing by my nomination for now. It's clear from further searching that the game was renamed sometime in 2002-3 to "Quest for Saddam" from its original name, "Quest for Hussein." I haven't found any of these articles that the MSNBC interviewed mentioned, and candidly, judging by the website, I'm not sure it actually received that coverage (the interview is extremely fawning and may not have investigated things here). It's worth noting that Wired in particular maintains a very detailed database of its old stories and hosts everything, but it isn't there at all -- if anyone has scans from around 2002-3, might be worth looking into. I've also found a couple of passing mentions of the game at its old name: [45] (an article from the Boston Globe about whether to call Saddam Hussein "Saddam" or "Hussein" and is a passing mention) and [46] (Philly Inquirer column that uses the game as a framing narrative to talk about games that feature killing terrorists). Nomader (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've gone through and added some of the sources (including the Detroit Free Press piece) to the article, along with context about it being a part of Quest for Bush. I could also see an argument to be made where the page is merged into Quest for Bush -- the latter has a ton of sources and a really good article could be written about it. Nomader (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The evidence found by Nomader convinces me that the topic is notable. I hope that someone will improve the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of messaging applications for Nintendo game consoles[edit]

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

Just a group of non-notable software that is still not notable even when bundled together. No real reason they cannot be talked about on the requisite page of the game system in question. (The article used to be about PictoChat only before it was turned into a group article, so maybe it should be page swapped with PictoChat before deletion). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. PictoChat is notable. The others might not be notable by themselves but they were merged in here to keep them around. I would say if anything the article just needs some cleanup of excessive detail. Andre🚐 20:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan: First of all, WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a real argument. If you have the sources to prove PictoChat is notable, please put them here, as I unironically would love to see them - a WP:BEFORE from me came up with only one of note. Second of all, I assume this is a Move to PictoChat and keep argument based on what you said, rather than keep at its current name, as bundling non notable, only tangentially related subjects is not under Wikipedia policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is extensive magazine coverage of PictoChat[47]. Most are passing mentions, but a few cover this more in-depth such as Play and EGM magazine from 2004 Andre🚐 21:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan: These all seem like trivial coverage, not extensive coverage. Can you point to the ones in particular that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a blurb in this issue of Play[48] Built in to the DS hardware, PictoChat lets up to 16 users converse, exchanging messages and drawings with the DS’ wireless capabilities. and it comes up again Not unlike PictoChat, Ping Pals is messaging software that lets up to 16 players communicate via DS. I'd say those blurbs plus the screenshots is pretty much what passes for significant coverage in a gaming magazine. It's more than a passing mention but not the main topic of the entry. Plus EGM [49] The stylus-centric wireless instant mes- saging/drawing program PictoChat is built right in to the DS hardware. with screenshots. Again, this is more or less a decent mention for a gaming magazine. There's also a bit in this publication "The Girl's Guide to Gaming" [50], p.299-301. This one looks decent as well [51] p.17-18 And check out this one[52] Andre🚐 21:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan: The only one there I'd call non-trivial coverage is the Hyper magazine review, but since there are also GameSpot and IGN hands-on impressions of Pictochat, I think I'm convinced that it's notable, since that is three WP:SIGCOV sources.

That said, it still has no bearing on whether a list like this is notable. But I would support a "move back to PictoChat and trim the rest" result for this AfD, since PictoChat is the only notable subject here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, yes, I don't really see anything to keep in Wii Message Board / Wii U Message board. Those should really just be described as features in the Wii(U) articles. Andre🚐 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I'm struggling a bit to see where exactly you're drawing the line with some of these editorial decisions. This is an unnecessary split, but Nintendo DS Browser was so necessary you restored it with almost no improvement? Please help me make it make sense, beecause it feels random and arbitrary as is. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simple, Nintendo DS Browser is an unequivocal pass of WP:GNG while no application in this article is notable. See WP:NEXIST, as the quality of an article at the current time does not correspond to its notability/potential for improvement. The browser article stands to be drastically improved once its reception gets expanded and cruft removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was not redirected for notability reasons, it was redirected for being an unnecessary split from the parent Nintendo DS article because it's just a basic port of a basic web browser. More or less the same thing this nomination is getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is pretty much an WP:WEDONTNEEDIT argument. I could also say that Firefox is a basic web browser as well, and I would be telling the truth, but it is still highly notable. The fact is that the Nintendo DS Browser was unique as it was a standalone purchase, necessitated critical reviews for people to decide on said purchase, and had its own hardware adapter to even make it functional. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same could be said for PictoChat it was a notable messaging feature and had a cultural impact, it was a feature that reviewers and commentators specifically spoke about. It was a built-in feature but was billed as a new software platform for messaging. Andre🚐 21:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, hence my confusion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Two items on this list have separate articles, one has an entire section of a larger article, and one has been discussed as notable above. A "Non-notable" argument does not work here. The others are probably non-notable, but that is what you get with lists without notability criteria sometimes. In conclusion, this should not be deleted, especially not for notability concerns. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuicoleJR: By your own admission the only notable thing here is Pictochat. So, you should specify the article be moved to Pictochat even if kept. There's no particular reason to bundle Pictochat with everything that came afterwards even if they aren't even the same thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Did you read my reasoning? I said that two of them had their own article, which clearly makes them notable. Neither of those were Pictochat. One of them had an entire section of another article, which is a lesser, but still there, form of notability. That one was not Pictochat either. Pictochat was the one discussed as notable here. That is four notable entries. The rest are just byproducts of a list criteria not based on notability. Clearly, notability is not a valid argument for deletion here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuicoleJR: None of them would be notable enough for a standalone article besides Pictochat, so they do not "have their own article". They are a section of a larger article that is not entirely about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I was wrong about one, but Swapnote, one of the entries on this list, has an article, as you can see by the link. Swapdoodle has its own section of the article on Swapnote, and Wii Speak Channel has a section of the article on Wii Speak. Pictochat is clearly not the only one worth mentioning. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuicoleJR: Swapnote has an article, yes, but it shouldn't. It's not notable. If you can prove that actual WP:SIGCOV exists of Swapnote I might legit consider withdrawing this AfD, but right now I can only find trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Destructoid and Joystiq looked like WP:SIGCOV. I believe Nintendo Life is an independent reliable source as well. There is your WP:SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, my argument is that the coverage is not significant despite being mentioned by WP:RS. The Joystiq one was simply a trivial news update as far as I could tell. I am pretty confident the article wouldn't survive AfD without being merged to Nintendo 3DS#Swapnote, making it yet another "section of a bigger article" type mentions. The article claims there was a GameSpot review but the lack of any source and the fact that it is "out of 5" rather than 10 makes me think it's a hoax. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Swapnote has a metacritic page. The "Swapnote Remastered" update was covered by Nintendo Life. Twice. Destructoid also covered the remastered update. There is an article about Swapnote at TheGamer, assuming that is reliable. A news update entirely dedicated to Swapnote is hardly trivial. This is clearly WP:SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it has articles on IGN. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Having a Metacritic page" is not significant coverage. Everything has one, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

The Gamer is also not considered proof of notability per WP:VG/S

And news updates can be trivial if they are simply informing on patch notes or announcements and not describing something indepth. If nothing better can be discovered I will probably be nominating Swapnote for AfD whatever the result of this one is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would advise against that. Just from a cursory glance of a few sources (IGN, Nintendo Life, GameSpot), Swapnote has a lot of significant coverage. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nintendo Life went into detail about the why, not just patch notes. There were also several other quality sources. How is that NOT significant coverage? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Delete Individual apps might or might not be notable, but there's no assertion versus LISTN that as a whole, Nintendo game console chat apps are an element that's been the subject of critical focus. Sources that X, Y, and Z exist do not equate to "A List of X, Y, and Z" being worthy of inclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as mostly unsourced. There is some scattered coverage that might make sense for a redirect, or very selective merge if someone wants to suggest a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note for closing admin If this page does get deleted, please move it to PictoChat and delete all content not under that heading rather than the entire article. The swapped with page can then be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The sections without references should either get references or be deleted, but this kind of model of "small topics merged to a general list somewhere" is a good one. While ideally it would be an overarching topic with general coverage as David Fuchs mentions, as this is a Wikipedia grouping, it's not completely forbidden to group these in some fashion that makes sense on Wikipedia, and "messaging applications" doesn't really seem like OR. So as long as there are short, referenced sections that are kept in some sort of meta-article like this one, it's fine. SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and Restore PictoChat as a standalone article. Fails WP:NLIST with minimal coverage of these subjects as a group. There seems to be enough coverage of Pictochat for standalone notability. Other applications have less coverage and many already have articles or sections in other articles. Frank Anchor 16:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]