Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

See also Games-related deletions.

Video games-related deletions[edit]

The Boss (Metal Gear)[edit]

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

The current sources at reception were jusrt listicles and rankings. I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [1] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silfade[edit]

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

In the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get zero results looking up "silfade". Looking up creator SmokingWOLF, I get two (a 4gamer piece and an interview with Famitsu. Using Google Translate, I see the different spelling 'sylphide'. Again, zero results (except results to the unrelated ballet La Sylphide). Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is probably not notable, but please note that such a search really needs to be perfomed in Japanese (シルフェイド) in order to determine whether there are sufficient sources (WP:BEFORE); it's not the case that there are no hits when searching in Japanese. The Famitsu link you gave above calls this the maker's most important work. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Automation-media.com, forest.watch.impress.co.jp IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roboquest[edit]

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

Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. Lack of notability indicated by no WP:VG/S review sources, either in the article or doing a WP:BEFORE, which only yielded mention in one WP:OFFLINE source from the Dutch magazine Gameplay. Reviews for two situational sources: TechRaptor and Gaming Age, although source discussions for neither seem particularly positive and both authors, whilst having a few reviews under their belt, have no experience or presence outside writing for their respective websites. Absent more reliable sources being found, seems like coverage is mostly confined to primary sources, non-reliable indie blogs and game guide type articles. Mindful this is a little closer to borderline than usual so welcome thoughts. VRXCES (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. VRXCES (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Honestly, expected to !vote the other way before digging in here. I did find an in-depth preview article at Jeux Video ([2]), a reliable French video game website which is listed on WP:VG/RS, along with a completely random but seemingly WP:RS review from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ([3]). These articles combined with the TechRaptor and Gaming Age hits put it over the edge into keep category for me. Nomader (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NONENG comes through! I'll keep open for a second opinion but that's looking better. Shame about the WP:NEXIST on Gameplay but good find on the Arkansas paper, for whatever use it is, it is obviously significant coverage. VRXCES (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nodus Domini[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The game is mentioned in passing in 3 of 5 sources and the other 2 are database entries. No added content since its creation in 2021. Humsorgan (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fate/Grand Order characters[edit]

List of Fate/Grand Order characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I'm a big fan of Fate/Grand Order as a game, I feel this list is a behemoth that ultimately fails notability on its own, and has become more of a cruft dragon that doesn't really explain why these characters are important. The bigger issue though is a notability one: while Fate itself definitely has reactions, the harder argument is that FGO's characters on their own do in an overarching way that makes it work for WP:N or WP:LISTN.

Even reception for Mash and Ritsuka would be more for them, and that could be worked into the parent game article (and as someone that tried to do a writeup on Mash, I'm not confident the sources are there) Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect The article is massive with no substance, cites all of ONE source (Anime News Network), and it might as well be written in Martian for people like me who know nothing about the games. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing my vote to redirect. Why the flip do I keep forgetting this is an option? sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Life/Yahtzee/Payday[edit]

The Game of Life/Yahtzee/Payday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did an extensive search, found only one review: [4] Otherwise, there's almost no coverage. Also checked print sources, only to find brief mentions of it in a couple Nintendo Power magazines. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy (BioShock)[edit]

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

This character looks a bit popular for Bioshock. But before the result shows only merchandise and costume or being cosplayed. This source is a bit good [6], but it looks like another typical listicle with a short commentary. Nothing else. I may be wrong at Google Scholar thou. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Brothers[edit]

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

Lack of notability - sole sources on the article are arcade database listings, KLOV is reliable per WP:VG/RS while Arcade History is unreliable. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources demonstrating notability. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma Engine[edit]

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

Video game engine used in a handful of games circa 2003. No actual coverage whatsoever. My redirect was correctly undone as it is not mentioned in the target article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Desiderio[edit]

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

Obviously fails notability, but with also COI issue. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article passes WP:GNG, in which it has significant reliable sources like ([7], ([8], few more sources are added now and it has also have notable award and nominations such as two times Hollywood Music in Media Awards nominated and more other reliable festivals.Iitttlefir (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't reliable at all. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentIitttlefir is the creator of the article up for deletion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The evidence points to it being a COI article but also it potentially passing WP:NCOMPOSER, making an outright deletion potentially hasty. However, currently it lacks decent sourcing or any sort of non-resume-like content. I would suggest it be draftified and prohibited from being recreated without the approval of a knowledgeable editor, if sources can be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 14:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Can't find anything on this composer whatsoever. Additionally, Iitttlefir's entire edit history consists of creating articles for obscure, non-notable filmmakers using as the image a full-res, staged photoshoot that they describe as "own work" – genuinely leading me to believe that they may be being asked to do these on the subjects' behalfs. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage for this composer is very scarce, mostly database biographies. The NYFA piece seems good, but WP:MUSICBIO clearly states that the subject must have multiple pieces of significant coverage for notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium (video game)[edit]

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

Unsourced, lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this game. Article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2013. Waxworker (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Sinclair[edit]

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

I am having hard time finding sigcov about him, I may be wrong in the google scholar. All of the sources at reception were just from the game (He is just mostly a passing mention). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bioshock 2 - Like many articles on fictional characters that only appeared in a single piece of fiction, the reception section is just the result of WP:REFBOMBing, where a multitude of extremely trivial mentions are jammed in to give the illusion of genuine coverage. But, the vast majority of these are simply reviews of Bioshock 2 in general, that simply mention the character briefly. In a number of these, it is literally a single sentence worth of "coverage" on the character that is being used as a source. Searching is not bringing up anything that goes into significant coverage on Sinclair himself apart from just general coverage of Bioshock 2 that would allow him to pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Fish[edit]

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

Basically a list of games, suggesting redirect to Get Fit With Mel B. IgelRM (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet WP:THREE and it only uses primary sources. All I see is a list of games to keep the article up. It also doesn't meet WP:NCORP. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bean Games[edit]

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

Virtually a list of games, doesn't appear sufficiently notable. Suggesting redirect to Milestone (Italian company). IgelRM (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O~3 Entertainment[edit]

O~3 Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced with a list of games. Bill Gardner should probably be mentioned somewhere, but this publisher doesn't appear sufficiently notable. IgelRM (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom[edit]

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

Procedural listing. This was WP:BLARed, restored, then BLARed a second time, and per that page, Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. ~ A412 talk! 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario. There's nothing really being said in the article and I trust in the previous redirector's judgement of the potential sourcing state. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Draftify. As of right now there is nothing on this article that seems to suggest that the subject of this article holds enough water to stay up. This article is mostly filled with primary, situational or even unreliable sources. The only two positive sources here are the GamesRadar+ sources and even then one is a listicle. Now, I am not entirely sure if there is WP:SIGCOV for this subject, it wouldn't surprise me if there is but it would likely take quite a while to find the necessary coverage, which is what prompted me to suggest a draft because I believe the subject does have potential. But as of right now, I think any useful information from this article should be merged into the Mario (franchise) article, as it was redirected towards two weeks ago. CaptainGalaxy 23:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the problem with listicle articles is that often it's about one entry on the list, making it trivial coverage. For example, if an article lists "50 greatest Mario characters"... obviously, almost all characters of any import would be included. However, the listicle would still be quite significant if we were talking about a character list that needed reception. In this case, the listicles are entirely about the Mushroom Kingdom, and it's not a "10 best Mario areas" situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a problem with listicles, but not the only one. Listicles are often a hallmark of low-quality and low-effort content farms, or in other words an indicator of a lack of seriousness and significance of coverage. xkcd's quip about the "17 worst haircuts in the Ottoman Empire" comes to mind. They typically do not in themselves indicate notability either of the individual entries or the overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that the listicle is about the Mushroom Kingdom, but the problem I'm having with this is that the entries on this list are very surface level in terms of coverage, or that they aren't worth mentioning. In my opinion, it's quite fancruft-y. CaptainGalaxy 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta love the snobbery here: GNG is met, but these aren't serious RS'es, so they don't count. Fancruft argument here is circular: looks like what some editors consider badly written Wikipedia article, therefore cannot be an RS. Sorry, folks, that's not how RS works. We judge Wikipedia by them, not them by Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perfectly possible for a usually-reliable outlet to produce non-reliable content (and vice versa, for the matter), which I'm sure you're aware of. Likewise, it is possible for WP:Reliable sources to fail to produce WP:Significant coverage, which I'm also sure you're aware of. Furthermore, meeting WP:GNG (or some other standard for WP:Notability, as the case may be) does not necessarily mean that a topic is appropriate for stand-alone articles—sometimes we have a WP:NOPAGE situation. TompaDompa (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think that this would be needed for a long-standing editor, but describing people's AfD arguments as "snobbery" is a deeply explicit violation of WP:CIVILITY. If you aren't able to engage with the things people say without making these kinds of comments, I'm not sure you should really be commenting on things. It's also not snobbery, as TompaDompa points out, which makes the claim extra confusing. It is not snobbery to say that offering trivial coverage of a subject is of lower value, it's a common sense observation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not cleanup. The article may not be in a good state but the topic is quite notable. I found articles from Kill Screen, GamesRadar+, TheGamer and that's totally ignoring stuff like ScreenRant that is debatably notable as they have an article on it too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 02:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really would not use that weirdly in-universe-feeling TheGamer listicle for establishing notablity (as per discussion here) but wow, that Kill Screen article is amazing and exactly what I needed back when I failed to improve this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Super Mario. I tried cleaning up the article about a year ago, but gave up when I realized that strictly "cleaning up" the article would cut it down to almost nothing - pretty much the whole article would have to be redone. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of WP:BEBOLD I will see about cleaning it up as this is clearly implying that if it was no longer WP:TNT it would be eminently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 03:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the implication of Serge's comment is that there is a lack of sourcing in the article, and comparatively little to say as demonstrated by said sourcing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Zx's sources. Though the article is not in the best state, I don't think its bad enough for a TNT either. MoonJet (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Zxcvbnm Koopinator (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't done a WP:BEFORE yet, so for now, I'm looking at what is present. I'll put it in a collapsible list to save space.
  • The Evening Standard is verifying information and is not about the Mushroom Kingdom, not GNG-relevant.
  • The next source includes info about its use in the theme park, which is generally understood to not be relevant to GNG (also article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom).
  • The next two sources are Nintendo sources.
  • The GamesRadar+ source seems to primarily discuss factual information. It represents a show that staff deemed the kingdom worthwhile to talk about, but there's also not much to be gained from the source for the article.
  • The Gamer source talks about information about Mushroom Kingdom, but does not themselves have anything to say about it. It's yet again an article about the Mushroom Kingdom, but not only does it provide only so much content to be included, being The Gamer makes it dubious as a show of significance.
  • 25YL source only talks about factual information, and the article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom.
  • The Advocate source is about Toad, not Mushroom Kingdom, and is only to verify the existence of a character in the Mushroom Kingdom.
  • The second The Gamer source is just about Goombas, while the Forbes article is just about verifying that coins are a currency of the Mushroom Kingdom.
  • The second GamesRadar+ article seems at first a significant source, but to be honest, it does not strike me as such. The article is primarily about a location **within** the Mushroom Kingdom, and discusses the Mushroom Kingdom only minimally.
  • The Smashbros.com source is a primary source used to verify the existence of a "Mushroom Kingdom" stage.
Keeping this one out because I feel it's an important part of the assessment, as it's what seems like the strongest show of notability on the surface. Finally, the Kill Screen source is one that, once again, feels like a source that is about Mushroom Kingdom, but in reality, is using it as an opportunity to discuss things that happen within it. Looking at the 'Development' section, the article is sourced to talk about the Super Mushroom, the designs of the castles (mainly Peach's Castle - honestly if that was an article I'd maybe think it'd have a chance), Mario enemies, and the Super Leaf. The Mushroom Kingdom appears to be an umbrella for these potentially notable topics to be discussed, but I think counting stuff like Koopa Troopas and the Super Leaf as showing the notability of Mushroom Kingdom is a pretty big stretch. It seems to me like an article with weak sourcing is trying to use whatever it can to inflate it, and to me, the proof of this is that Mario's design inspirations and ideas, despite being covered under "Mushroom Kingdom" like Koopa Troopa was, it would rightly feel odd.
In its current state, the article is extremely weak, with very little in the way of commentary, let alone notability. Most of the article is taking brief mentions to verify factual information about the setting, to the point that the article has exactly zero instances of anyone having anything to say about the setting themselves. I'm holding off on voting until Zx does some more work to address notability issues, as well as for me to do my own searching (especially Japanese sources, those can often be rather surprising). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I have been feeling the same way. There being no reception on the general design characteristics of the world (rounded hills, bright-green grass, lots of brown bricks) has always been the main pain for me here. If no one's talking about the Mushroom Kingdom being a blue skyed utopia or something along those lines, there's just so little to work with... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about locations within the Mushroom Kingdom still count as proof of notability for the Kingdom itself. The argument that they could never possibly do so is a bit ludicrous in my eyes and feels like a no true Scotsman-type argument. I doubt Peach's Castle can support an article, but this is the most obvious place to put that information by far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't get why you think that, when the two sources that appear like significant coverage provide more sigcov on Peach's Castle than the Mushroom Kingdom. It's not a matter of saying that a source has to do a deep dive into the Mushroom Kingdom to be notable, but fact is, the argument for Princess Peach's Castle's notability is more adequately proven in the Mushroom Kingdom article than the argument for notability of the Mushroom Kingdom itself. The GamesRadar+ source doesn't even make sense, because the commentary in that article is almost entirely, if not entirely, focused on how it makes players feel to explore and experience the castle, about how they make it more lived in compared to Dinosaur Land. The article discusses it not as a setting, but as a level, and how it influences other Mario levels. As far as notability goes, there are multiple reliable sources about modding Peach's Castle into other games, there is creation info relating to how it was possibly going to serve as the basis for Ocarina's setup, multiple sources about how it was a significant part of why Super Mario 64 was a special game, multiple sources about a financial assessment of what Peach's Castle would be worth in real life, articles praising it as a standout hub world in gaming, and more. I find the notion that there's more to the article now compared to what I've found for Peach's Castle kind of incredulous!
I also do not believe remotely that sources for locations in the Mushroom Kingdom count as overall notability; at what point does that extend to, say, Mushroom World, the encompassing world of the Mario universe? Is Lordran notable because Anor Lando is notable? We can't argue that a location in a space makes that space notable, the only thing that can be used to say a location is notable is if we have reliable, significant secondary coverage of it. As it stands, and in the sources I've searched so far, there is virtually nothing that critics are saying about the setting. Based on what little I've found in my source search, I don't really feel like this article comes close to notability. As it is, all of the content is just descriptions of the setting and things that happen to exist in the setting. Redirect to Super Mario. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do personally think this article serves as a coatrack (just don't look at that guideline) for the entire Super Mario setting, similar to a "Universe of .." article. I am quite happy with sources that dive into specific details from the Mushroom Kingdom, such as Peach' castle or even its cast of critters. I'm just not very happy with listicles that try to explain in-universe oddities between games or take those oddities literally. The Mushroom Kingdom isn't a kingdom. It doesn't have a clearly defined monarch or even any towns, and a source that suggests that Bowser used to be the king or some stuff like that I just can't take seriously... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Super Mario per Cukie Gherkin's analysis. I do not agree with the idea that locations within a place can be used unsupported to make an article about the place itself. ― novov (t c) 04:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as to someone who redirected this article before and per Cukie's analysis. I don't feel like the other sources were good except for Killscreen, though that talks about Mario and Koopa Troopa's design. not really that helpful, but at least we have a good source right there. Still not enough for me for that. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm sorry, but the sources by ZX I feel are not significant enough to justify the article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Cukie Gherkin's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirect as implied by the nominator. A source analysis would be helpful since improvements have been made to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Per Cukie Gherkin. There is, in fact, a source analysis above by Cukie Gherkin, but the list is hidden to save screen space. The article was updated on the same day as this analysis, but no new sources have been. That analysis addressed the independence of sources and correctly discounts Nintendo sources. It also addresses SIGCOV of the remaining sources, and is in line with my own view. Most of the sources are not about the page subject but merely mention it. Reliability is raised over a source that does speak directly about it, and even where the subject is addressed, there are SIGCOV issues. I think this source analysis is good enough, unrebutted, and indicates that a redirect would be the best outcome here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I find redirecting to Super Mario fine where the subject is being mentioned. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised that there isn't a Super Mario Universe article or something of the like. There are lots of sources that talk about this fictional universe, and an entire book called "The World of Mario Bros" (which would be another valid redirect).[14] I see at least one more good source from Zxcvbnm, and arguably more. I can find at least a few more myself.[15][16][17] I feel pretty confident that sources exist out there if this is approached as the main article for the game universe. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ClanLib[edit]

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

Nothing in the article suggests this meets WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG, and my BEFORE did not find anything useful (WP:SIGCOV-compliant). Can anyone save this? Otherwise we can consider a redirect target, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character)[edit]

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

Article was barely improved since the January AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online). Kotaku source were the only good one here, but it doesn't really discuss the character at all. The added sources doesn't really help WP:GNG either and it was barely improved like what people said at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 18. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Redirection and Keep. For all of the dozens of sources brought up here, it is surprising that no further improvement has been done on the article since its nomination. I'm not encouraging REFSPAM but if there are any reliable sources, they should be added as it is unlikely (no, make that impossible) that participants will go through all of the references included in this discussion. It seems like spaghetti being thrown at the wall to see what sticks. It's overwhelming for editors to evaluate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per above. This article was AfDd once and got changed to a redirect, and should not have been brought back without substantial improvements. Would also like to note that The dogcat has practically been bludgeoning this AfD, and I would advise them to refrain from continuing to do so, since it's just making users more annoyed than anything else. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999, Hello, it's not that it bothers the users, but if it really bothers me, I won't bother you, but I will add comments if I find more sources. Thank you. The dogcat (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There's a lot of coverage, but it's all a mix of trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources. I'm just not seeing the significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources—all at once—that WP:GNG requires. Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This source can help because it is beyond trivial mentions. https://www.cbr.com/sword-art-online-characters-every-fan-loves-get-too-much-hate/ The dogcat (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop bringing up the same source over and over again. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CBR (Comic Book Resources) is generally unreliable post-2016 (see WP:VG/S) and with only 2 paragraphs about the character this source is absolutely trivial. Valnet pumping out junk article after junk article like this is exactly why they're unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The CBR situation is more iffy than that, but it can be used in articles. Either way, the notability it provides is iffy at best, and for an article like this it doesn't really help that issue. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't even say "iffy". Per WP:VALNET, In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. Valnet is really just the worst kind of content farm. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. https://www.fandompost.com/2016/01/23/sword-art-online-ii-set-4-limited-edition-blu-ray-anime-review/ It's not that I want to bash but this FandomPost source describes Yuuki several times. The dogcat (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you already mentioned this source above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Despite the bludgeoning, I will state firstoff I don't hold the same opinion of my esteemed colleagues regarding Valnet: if a source from there is saying something substantial I feel it can be used. However, what's there isn't substantial, and what's here isn't either. I don't feel any of the sources combined satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - When this was examined during an AFD just a few months ago, the current sources were examined, further sources were searched for, and none of them were convincing enough for this character to pass the WP:GNG. A multitude of trivial mentions, plot summaries, and brief mentions in discussions of the series as a whole do not add up to demonstrate actual notability, and spamming every google hit mentioning the character, no matter the quality or actual usability as source in an article, is not doing anything to convince me otherwise. Rorshacma (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorschacma. The third party coverage isn't substantial enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and redirect is a fine WP:ATD. Would also accept small amounts of merging at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Total Gaming[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG Particleshow22 (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article does not meet WP:GNG, the sources found by A412 could improve the article's notability. A few grammar corrections to be made aswell. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I'd say 40 million YouTube subscribers is pretty notable, but definitely needs more improvement. Someone with 40 million YouTube subscribers surely has a lot more to be said about them than one game and a face reveal. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

The subject of this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as outlined in News18 [60],. Numerous reliable sources have covered Total Gaming's extensively, demonstrating their significance in Gaming.These citations demonstrate the subject's enduring relevance and importance, warranting the retention of this article on Wikipedia.Overall, deletion of this article would diminish the availability of valuable information on a notable subject and contradict Wikipedia's mission to provide comprehensive coverage of notable topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aafaq Ashraf (talkcontribs) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he has been covered extensively maybe you can add that information to the Wikipedia article. Right now there's barely anything. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Maybe he's notable, but the article is shockingly bad and poorly made. It needs more work and it feels like this was very rushed. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify If the subject has 40 million+ subscribers there's definitely notability there, but this needs much more development beyond mentioning he plays one game and is written in a non-standard manner. Nate (chatter) 17:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commodore 16 games[edit]

List of Commodore 16 games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list seemingly relying on copying from a Plus/4 World database. IgelRM (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C16 was big in Europe. This is not the same exact list as PD/Homebrew games are omitted. NPI WOL (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 23:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - feels similar to the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atari 2600 prototype games, which ended with a consensus to send it to the draft space. This sort of list can be done right. But not like this. Needs sourcing, which can be hard to come by with a subject so old like this. It could be improved, but it also has no business existing in the main space as is. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was games not released, so totally unrelated to the situation here. Category:Video game lists by platform shows how many list like this exist. Any references can be found in the 76 game articles linked to. Dream Focus 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's completely irrelevant. Whether or not the games were released was not a factor in that discussion. The point was, it was a valid list premise, but couldn't be published as its current form because of a complete lack of sourcing. I dont understand how you missed the point so badly... Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already added some references simply by looking at the articles linked to and copying them over. As I clearly stated, the 76 games articles linked to have references confirming they exist. The many other lists like this don't have references for every single item. If you wish to delete any entry without a reference and/or their own article, then you still have 76 things listed, so its a valid list. Dream Focus 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say roughly 75% of the entries don't have an article to check for sources though, which still leaves you with an article that's either largely unsourced (or wildly incomplete if you remove all unsourced entries.) Still feels like a prime candidate for the draft space... Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as stated above, whilst somewhat lazy of me, the response in the Atari 2600 discussion is identically relevant here: The list is a valid one with a clear category and not inherently without merit. But it's just unverifiable based on the lack of sourcing, the ambiguous scope, and non-notability of the items themselves. Put it this way - if it were a list, the immediate question would be "How do you know these are eligible?" In this case, there is one source, but that isn't going to be enough to WP:VERIFY the list. More work is needed. (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for the reasons stated by VRXCES.Rillington (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a relevant list of a relevant system, not some random prototype. NPI WOL (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you have to WP:VERIFY that the list is correct. It may not be as arbitrary as the other example, but relying on a single source for this list is putting a very strong faith in that source being a correct and complete list. So really the article is no more reliable than just going to the external source. The best course is to either find more sources, or draftify it until someone does so. VRXCES (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(You're supposed to identify yourself as the article creator.) Even ignoring Wikipedia policies that make this not okay, the list, as is, is completely unnecessary. You just stole another websites list and put it in Wikipedia. People should be going to see their website to see their list. It's entirely redundant. A list of these games is possible...but absolutely not like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want this article kept but I agree with VRXCES, and would also add that the article needs independent references as well before it can be returned to mainspace. Therefore I feel that draftifying the article is the right course of action at this point.
One option might be for the list to be a combination of notable games and games which can be verified with an independent reference. Rillington (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: @NPI WOL: Could you say where you source this list from? I think policy is to Wikipedia:Revision deletion copyright violations, but we may keep the entries that can be verified by the added sources. We could redirect a redirect to the existing category as long as the list is in draft if that helps with concerns? IgelRM (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Commodore_16_and_Plus/4_games there are 76 games that have articles, so valid navigational list. Lists are always more useful than categories, since they allow more information. Dream Focus 03:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't address the severe sourcing issues raised. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned that above already. But I also went and found that MobyGames has all these games listed, with covers and screenshots proving they exist, and links to reviews done in old magazines about them that also prove they exist. The old magazines linked to are backed up on archive.org. Since no discussion on MobyGames being considered a reliable source has taken place in over a decade, I started a discussion for that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#MobyGames_owned_by_Atari_now. Dream Focus 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of you not clicking on that link, please note that, as of my writing this, the suggestion of using MobyGames as a source was unanimously rejected by the Wikiproject members. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You and the four people who participated are against it. Dream Focus 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, correct. You suggested it. 5 people opposed. 0 supported. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Following the addition of external references I am now changing my vote from draftify to keep. Rillington (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor sourcing 6 out of 900+ entries was enough for you to decide incubating in the draft space was not necessary and is now ready to be published? Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 75 articles linked to have references that can be copied over, and there are old magazines archived that review other things. No one is going to work on the article if its in draft space. AFD determine if an article should exist, not judging the current state it is in. Dream Focus 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    20 references in the reflist now. Very easy to do. Dream Focus 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles that are technically plausible, but wildly underdeveloped/undersourced, are the very reason why we have the draft space. There is no rush here. As I noted above, the article creator largely just copy/pasted this list from another website. The info will still be available on the internet if it's sent to draft. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes because it is clear to me that the references now found, and added, means that the contents of this list can be independently verified. This means that the article is now suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and now does not need to be relegated to draftspace. Rillington (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a physical museum that has old games in its collection. https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/sec/1973/Commodore-C16-Plus-4/ That proves they exist and basic information about them. They have 181 games in their collection for this system. Other museums surely exist out there as well to reference the rest. The current list has 546 games total on it. Dream Focus 07:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: I don't think there was much doubt that the games exist. A Wikipedia article relying on their database not be in interest of the museum? It appears to only list a game's cover, format, publisher, author and release year. IgelRM (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    76 of the games currently have links to their own articles. So that's enough for the list article to exist. As for the other games listed, they are there to make the list complete. If there is no doubt they exist, no reason to remove any of them from the list. Dream Focus 07:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly valid navigational list. The argument for deletion/draftification is that many of the entries are unsourced, but "was this a Commodore 16 game or not" is extremely easy to verify. Items that fail verification can simply be removed. There's no reason to delete or even to draftify this. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is complete, it has historical encyclopaedic value to anyone with an interest in retro videogames. Not only that, but games for a specific console are a widely discussed topic as a group. My question then to inclusion criteria is whether sources do likely exist. I did a spot check on some random ones on this list, and I'm satisfied that okayish sources do generally exist. For example, picking a random one from the list "Astro Plumber" I found https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/47327/Astro%20Plumber/ and nothing else after some real hard looking. I think this article is valid, but should adopt a WP:CSC of requiring citation. I'm happy to move the current page content onto the talk page after this AfD closes. BrigadierG (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needs additional citations for verification, but meets WP:NLIST as video games for a console are often discussed together. Can also serve as a navigational list. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: @Liz: Recent comments don't deal with the nomination concern of database copyright, we all know it meets WP:NLIST. Could you recommend a different venue that deals with this so I may withdraw this AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IgelRM (talkcontribs)
    WP:CCI deals with WP:COPYVIO stuff, if that's what you're asking. Diannaa would probably be a good go-to Admin on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The list contains no creative content, so it doesn't qualify for copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Diannaa: There is database right but I suppose this is more of a moral case here? Thanks IgelRM (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't re-create a database; we only offer a list of products. — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Title, Genre, Release date, and Language are not a copyright issue. That information is on the game box. Same with Compilation, this just a list of products and what they contained. Where did the person who made the original database get the information from? Did they find a copy of every single game and copy the information from the boxes they came in? Dream Focus 11:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gelber (game designer)[edit]

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

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass notability requirements- the only sources I'm seeing online mention his name in passing, as a game creator, but are not written about him. Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of WP:System bias. Not much work or sources for his works, and the ones listed in the article is lacking verifiable sources to show he was the real creator as wikipedia's policy mandates. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Paranoia as the designer's apparently most relevant contribution. About the nomination, the opposite of no verifiability whatsoever seems to be the case here, as everything in the article referenced and therefore verified! Likewise, Dan Gelber does appear in reviews in multiple sources. So far I did not see more than his contributions acknowledged there, so nothing beyond what we have here, which so far is still a stub, so I understand the concern about SIGCOV. On the other hand, not all the sourced information the authors of our article here collected is present at Paranoia, so this should be preserved in a merge rather than deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mupen64Plus[edit]

Mupen64Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any reliable secondary sources. For the sources in the article:

10 is sourced to an article that also only mentions the software once. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per sources discovered by Mika1h. I am no longer weakly in support of it given the Softonic reviews that have come to light. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - Digital Trends' one paragraph isn't what I would consider significant coverage. Win Magazine article starts talking about the emulator only at halfway point so it's basically similar to Digital Trends in word count. CD-Action is the best of the three but still not especially beefy article. Not enough to pass GNG with these three sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mika1h: I also found a Softpedia review of the emulator. That is considered a reliable source as well, maybe it will change your view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Softpedia does reviews on request so I don't count their reviews towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep since I found some reviews for a variant of the emulator by Softonic: [61], [62], also a list entry from Pocket Gamer: [63]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly found source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]