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]

Stryker (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

One of my favorites back in the day but unfortunately no longer meets notability. He hasn't been playable in twelve years, and there's next to no third-party coverage of him other than the same old "worst MK character!" rigamarole. Like the other AfDs, merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters: Doesn't show independent notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge To List of Mortal Kombat characters, an unnecessary split from the parent list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak merge: To List of Mortal Kombat characters. One of the few AFDs for Mortal Kombat characters I can get behind. And on one I personally created 11 years ago, no less. Maybe he would have had a chance if he was playable in MKX or MK11, particularly if he was DLC, but he wasn't. The coverage he has at Anime News Network is pretty good (which was since removed from the article, for some reason), and I'm not completely anti-listicle like some editors are, but I'm not seeing much in these listicles. So that's only one good source. That said, I have no prejudice towards reaction should more coverage on him pops up in the future. MoonJet (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters While this is a good article, the subject isn't notable enough. Also, could you list some of the "other AfDs" you're referring to? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Over the past five months we’ve had a bit of a fire sale with MK characters who no longer meet notability requirements for individual articles, mostly due to lack of significant coverage or few playable appearances. So far it’s Motaro, Sheeva, Cyrax, Sektor, Rain, Skarlet, Sindel, and just recently Baraka, Shinnok, Kabal, and Smoke. Jade may join the crowd soon as she is currently up for AfD. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge The sourcing doesn't meet notability, but there is an obvious merge target to preserve some information. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jade (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

Like Smoke, her only contribution to the MK series after three decades is being the BFF of a more notable character. There's not enough noteworthy reception out there to hang on to the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge To List of Mortal Kombat characters, an unnecessary split from the parent list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Unlike Baraka and Stryker (and maybe Smoke), which were recently at AFD too, I think this one should be kept. Like Kung Lao, Jade is a very popular character, so there's bound to be more coverage on her, over the likes of Baraka, Stryker and Smoke. Anyway, here's some pieces on Jade: [1] [2] [3] [4] The last two are not much, but they show real-world significance for her. Jade is also discussed in this book on black women in video games. Jade is discussed here too. Well, strangely, I don't see anything in the article article, but I do from the search excerpt. MoonJet (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of this strikes me as trivial coverage or unreliable sources. Cosplay of a character is rarely a mark of notability, unless the author somehow went into heavy analysis of their character design. This is... not. It's just "ooh, this person dressed as a video game character". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a book but simply an essay, and Bounding Into Comics is not a viable VG source. The Daily Dot one is good, but it's the only one to legitimately go into any depth about the character. Lastly, the Jade cosplayers (not counting Cargill's ring outfit) mentioned here and formerly in the article are not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Combat[edit]

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

I came to copy edit this article, and discovered it was almost entirely a game guide. It's completely unreferenced, and I can't find anything about it beyond simple directory listings. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect To List of Konami games, as it can be confirmed in WP:RS as a Konami arcade game, at least under the Warzaid name. However, it seems to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enderman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero real-world notability. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Would have redirected, but that is no longer an option since the redirect was challenged. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete (restore redirect) as a non-notable video game character failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. There are some random sources like [5], but not enough to write an encyclopedic article. There are a ton of source that mention the mob, but none are in-depth or focused on the mob itself. Especially, not something usable for WP:WAF. As it stands, it's WP:ALLPLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT. — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect To Minecraft#Gameplay - simply not enough significant coverage. However, it is absolutely a believable search term and the redirect it formerly as should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. As far as real world relevance goes this character doesn't qualify for its own article. It is very relevant to minecraft though, so we should redirect it. Blitzfan51 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable enough, however I do think that an article including a list of Minecraft mobs should be created. If such an article existed, I would propose this be merged with that one, however as no such article currently exists, I am voting for delete. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Fails notability ImperialMajority (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rocket Arena (mod)[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG with only a couple reviews from a single publication, not even of the same version of the mod. Apparently the previous deletion discussion resulted in a keep from some "random mentions" - standards were definitely lower in 2006. While I did a magazine search, and there are mentions of the mod in many gaming magazines, they all appear to be from one to a few sentences long, trivial and without much analysis. This lack of WP:SIGCOV is not fitting for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blahbalicious[edit]

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

While the article has existed since 2006, it doesn't seem to at any point have demonstrated standalone notability. A WP:BEFORE - including full magazine search - has unearthed some trivial mentions saying it was well regarded and the first feature-length Machinima movie (although it's apparently just a bunch of individual sketches), but no significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Machinima#Quake movies: Definitely a notable topic (several mentions of it being a pioneer film in the medium), but that's all there are: mentions. It isn't enough to meet WP:GNG, but it is encyclopedic. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: No WP:RS. SuperSharanya (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kira tto Kaiketsu! 64 Tanteidan[edit]

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

Not notable. See also ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Kira to Kaiketsu! 64 Tanteidan. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Is it possible that the game has sources, but it's locked away in Japanese websites/magazines? The 1990s were a different time. Far less minor indie titles that receive no RS coverage. Most retail releases receive coverage. I could be wrong, and I don't know Japanese to check, but it's just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only found this(so far) via Imagineer(the game's publisher website) [6] (release date + screenshots)

Pandora Box's(the game's developer) website also exists [7] Timur9008 (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - @Sergecross73 It is extremely likely. I legitimately don't like to even touch anything pre-internet due to itKatoKungLee (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Found a full review here. There is also (sort of) a review from IGN, even though it reads like it was written by a 13 year old with a thing against Japanese games. [8]. Still reliable source coverage though. One more like this and I'd be saying keep, as it's just scooching up to the notability line right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead Maze[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - all sources used are either trivial or from unreliable sites. While the article creator may be a WP:COI editor, the article itself doesn't read like spam; this nomination is in regards to its lack of notability rather than any actual problems with the article content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete~~: I was able to find this small news hit at Siliconera but otherwise nothing. Clearly not notable. Nomader (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And just to clarify for anyone coming by, confused why something with so many sources isn't getting a keep !vote from me -- the sources are all considered unreliable or user-submitted stuff according to WP:VG/RS. Nomader (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The article now has sources considered reliable by WP:VG/RS that the voter above is referring to. Shacknews, Hardcore Gamer, PCGamesN, Siliconera, Gry OnLine, Jeuxvideo.com. Additionally, this is a French game so there could be offline sources in language French, which I haven't looked for yet. Tagatose (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tagatose: These clearly don't pass WP:RS. Shacknews and Hardcore Gamer literally have the same print and appear to be sourced from a press release, PCGamesN is a key giveaway, Gry OnLine's page here is a Wiki page and not a review from staff, and the Jeuxvideo.com piece is a three sentence blurb. These are trivial mentions, and it's why I didn't cite these before. As I mentioned in my follow-up note, there's a lot of press releases and unreliable sources abounding with this one, but no real commentary on the game itself -- just ads and spammy content. Nomader (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I did find two articles from Metacritic which review the game, but I'm unsure of their reliability. They're from Areajugones (in Spanish) and The Overpowered Noobs. I saw that Overpowered Noobs was unreliable, but the discussion was from 2018, so there's a possibility it may have changed in reliability between those past few years. I'm not sure if AreaJugones has been vetted for reliability in the past, so if anyone wants to check, help yourselves. Also, I took a look at the French version of VG/RS, and I came across a review from CanardPC which is listed as reliable over there. I can't access it however because it's behind a paywall, so if anyone could test it for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PantheonRadiance: Reviewing it, I'd still say that The Overpowered Noobs is still unreliable and the consensus from the previous discussion can hold. I'd actually say that Areajugones *is* a reliable source -- it has a full-time editorial team and seems to have an editorial process in one of its About Us pages (although my Spanish isn't great, so would be better for a native speaker to review here). CanardPC also should be listed as reliable here as well based on its editorial policies and staffing page -- I tried various methods to get around the paywall as well but couldn't. I'm striking my !vote above and making it a week keep, because I'm assuming that behind the paywall there's a full review present. This is candidly a great lesson in doing harder searches for foreign-language content for me -- thanks to you and Tagatose for your searches to leave no stone unturned here. Nomader (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PantheonRadiance: @Nomader: Even factoring in the Areajugones and CanardPC review, I still will not withdraw the AfD. That's only a couple of sources and not at the level of proving WP:GNG, one further source would be nice. Also, can we prove CanardPC is actually reliable? Obviously anyone can tweak a sources list. I can't find a list of editors nor the real name of the writer, so I am highly dubious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I don't think that you should withdraw it -- this is still a "Weak Keep" at best from me, partially predicated on the fact that none of us can read that article, frustratingly. I found their "About Us" staff page here (Google Translated: [9]), which lists their publication history, staff, and editors. I'm counting the wimpy Siliconera article that I mentioned above as the "third" article that I'm looking at towards meeting WP:GNG right now. Nomader (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Siliconera is what I would see as WP:MILL coverage. Most likely it's based on some press release and doesn't have the critical view required for WP:SIGCOV. While Canard seems to be a real magazine, I also find it hard to take seriously the reliability of a site that does not list the real names of its writers, this is 2023 and not 2003. If there were a ton of other sources I'd probably say Canard is perfectly admissible, but when notability hangs in the balance, I'm not so sure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zxcvbnm and Nomader: Understandable that you would keep the AfD up; to be honest I would also recommend doing so too because we still haven't exactly accessed the CanardPC review. Also one thing to consider - I don't exactly remember where I read this, but I found out that apparently some European journalists use pseudonyms as a way to protect their identity. This was a concern I had when I first read pieces from sources listed on the French VG/RS page a few months ago. Although it may seem like something blogs would do, in this regard I don't think writers having pseudonyms should automatically alter the reliability of a news outlet. Not to mention, the writer of the Canard piece has also written for reliable source GameKult as well.

In the meantime, I'm holding off on voting and am going to see if any more French news outlets have written about the game. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:05, 25 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 ([10]). 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]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]
Keep. I feel that the sourcing is adequate, and there's no real risk of the list ballooning out of control. If it comes to that, forking the list into multiple lists (perhaps by year if it calls for it) would be fine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The deletion nomination opens with "Nearly all major game released these days will have their soundtracks uploaded to some music-streaming platforms" which still isn't the case for most Japanese games. Besides, the article is good to let users know of older games who finally may have their soundtracks available worldwide, for the first time, like several Castlevania series games. All the article needs is less primary sources for references but otherwise I don't see a net positive in deleting it. Jotamide (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:59, 28 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: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. 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. [20], [21], [22] [23] . 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. [24]
  - Fox News mention is passing, in the context of Virtual Jihadi, and doesn't contain any reviews of the show. [25])
  - 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 ([26], [27]).
    - 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: [28] (an article from the Boston Globe about whether to call Saddam Hussein "Saddam" or "Hussein" and is a passing mention) and [29] (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]

Merge to Quest for Bush. Non-notable by itself. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I found books that write about it:

We Are Iraqis: Aesthetics and Politics in a Time of War. (2013). United States: Syracuse University Press. Page 99 is mostly about it. I'd call this significant coverage, people could debate that.
Anthropy, A. (2012). Rise of the Videogame Zinesters: How Freaks, Normals, Amateurs, Artists, Dreamers, Drop-outs, Queers, Housewives, and People Like You Are Taking Back an Art Form. United Kingdom: Seven Stories Press. (also half a page, borderline significant coverage in my assessment)
Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play: Radical Game Design. United Kingdom: MIT Press. (most of a page, but larger book, more writing than the two above, I'd call this significant)

Like the above books do, academic papers also discuss the racial/ethnic and natioanlistic elements of the game:

BILAL, W. Curated Spaces. Radical History Review, [s. l.], n. 117, p. 139–148, 2013. DOI 10.1215/01636545-2375232. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=90650133&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2023.
HODGE, P. M. Manifesting Extinctathon: Virtual Reality and Terrorism in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. Global Media Journal: Indian Edition, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 1–22, 2021. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=155700174&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2023.

I actually find it surprising that both books and academic papers wrote about this game. It seems unusually notable. Also surprising that this has not been discussed above. CT55555(talk) 23:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But again though, we see that all of this context is based around Quest for Bush and Virtual Jihadi. @CT55555:, I think you've made an excellent argument that Virtual Jihadi should be expanded and possibly spun out from Wafaa Bilal's page, but at best, Quest for Saddam should be a background sentence for it and for Quest for Bush. It is simply not notable on its own.

The "We Are Iraqis" book's section is an extensive discussion.... of Quest for Bush or in this case, referring to it as Night of Bush Capturing. It highlights how the game used Quest for Saddam to create this other work.
The Anna Anthropy piece feels like it more directly addresses the game itself, and I think could be used for notability... but it's still presented in the light of Quest for Bush, which is where its significance comes from and only talks about Quest for Saddam in half a paragraph. (She is definitely a reliable source and is a prolific writer of both independent video games and about their creation, as a note here).
The Flanagan book is a really interesting piece..... on Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" game that I mentioned in my nomination. It extensively discusses it.
The first "Curated Spaces" article again is a great piece on Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" game which is again a modification of Quest for Saddam. It contains no information about Quest for Saddam. It is also extremely similar in the text that appeared in the "We Are Iraqis" book and appears to have been written by Bilal himself on both occasions (also using the same "the widely marketed video game" language).
The last source is actually worse than all the others. It literally says, " In 2006, Al Quaeda altered the video game Quest for Saddam, a first-person shooter game that allowed the player to capture Saddam Hussein, into Quest for Bush, thereby completely reversing the player’s aim. ISIS also released a jihad version of Grand Theft Auto and its android app called The Dawn of Glad Tidings."

I think it's clear based on your exhaustive search that there is *not* coverage of Quest for Saddam independently that makes it notable. Trust me, I've searched everywhere for it too, and everything that comes up is stuff like this. It should be at best a "background" sentence or two for these other topics. Nomader (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The significance of the coverage is a fair point to disagree on, even if I am not convinced. Do you consider that the game inspiring, or being the template for, others helps establish notability? From my perspective, I find it strange to accept the the spins offs are notable, but the original inspiration is not. CT55555(talk) 16:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It certainly isn't a common thing that we run into here on Wikipedia that's for sure! I don't think it necessarily does TBH, I really wish there was more independent coverage of the actual source here.

After reading through source after source, it seems clear to me that the only things saying that it "got significant coverage" is actually from Bilal talking about and promoting his own creation, Virtual Jihadi, and that weird MSNBC interview that I cited above where the interviewer takes at face value that it was covered in other places, but doesn't actually seem to be? I think this is really pushing me towards significantly improving both the coverage on Quest for Bush and Virtual Jihadi so a redirect can feel like a realistic ATD instead of deleting a reasonable place where all of this information can live. If this article ends up being kept and this discussion is closed, I may ping you for a gut check if a redirect would be appropriate later on. Nomader (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]