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]

Starwing Paradox[edit]

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

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either. WP:BEFORE just shows no real indication of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep: Does someone know the Japanese sources? I imagine that they'd be the most relevant for determining notability of an only-in-Japan game. In general, JP media tends to be more "fannish" than American video game outlets (lots of open regurgitation of the plot & characters), but I'm seeing some coverage. Famitsu has an overview here (yes, with lots of fannish "here are all the characters" rather than commentary, but see above, it's a Japanese game and it's going to get JP media standards), including links to 6 interviews with the voice actors, staff, and singers. Of which the staff ones are probably the "most" relevant (e.g. [1], [2]). Even if the game flopped, flops are interesting too. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a case of borderline notability if this was a Sunrise collaboration, Sunrise is a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pit (Kid Icarus)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was brought back recently, and again I feel the arguments of the previous AfD hold true here. Every new source added- with few exceptions- are either unreliable or a very trivial mention in a review of Uprising. Even using sources from the previous iteration of Pit's article, there still isn't nearly enough for a whole article. I recommend to restore the redirect, since nothing has been proven to state that the discussion's consensus has changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kazama16, who revived the article, for thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect - This was just Merged by pretty strong consensus at an AFD just three months ago, and really should not have been unilaterally restored without some kind of discussion first, which as far as I can see did not happen. But, regardless of that, the current version does not show any greater coverage in reliable sources that was presented or found in the previous discussion. All of the added sources in the reception section are simply reviews and coverage of Kid Icarus: Uprising as a whole, where the few sentences and quotes that specifically talk about Pit as a character are being cherry picked out to give the illusion of significant coverage. Uprising was a notable game that garnered many reviews, but cobbling together a dozen minor sentences of "reception" on the main character in them do not add together to give Pit his own notability separate from that of the games he appears in. Rorshacma (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sources that are used are press releases, ~~listicles~~, or articles about the game not the character. Still the same as the previous AfD. Update. Article still fails notability. Most were just trivia or passing mentions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boneless Pizza! Listicles??? where show me sources that cite "Top 10 best video game characters", Top 10 archers in video games" show me where are those sources? please carefully check the article before choosing your decision. Also what about page no 8 and 9 of this book in Portuguese about Pit.[3]] This whole article is about him.[4] and this too [5] (about his supposed design). There might be even more sources that are currently not present in the article, so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was exaggerating about listicles, but you're just throwing unreliable sources here except the book one which might be bit useful. Pls do not bludgeon the discussion and make any WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to your original assessment, I would say this one is definitely a listicle (and one that isn't even on Pit at that!), so you were not wrong. Rorshacma (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a mention of Pit in it on 9# Tetris. Quote= How cool is that? Well, it’s even cooler than you think because it’s not only Link; Samus Aran joins him on the cello, Pit plays the violin Kazama16 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you think "How cool is that? Pit plays the violin" is a valuable commentary to add at the article? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the game he appeared in not reception Kazama16 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he wasn't mentioned in it, I said that he was not the topic of the listicle in question. That sentence you quoted is the very definition of trivial coverage that is a very good example of showing what kind poor sources and cherry picked quotes are having to be used to try to make it look like the character has more coverage than he actually does. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really bludgeoning, they're just defending their reasons for making the article. Regardless, per above, 3 is only dev info, and that can only go so far given the lackluster Reception. The Fwoosh does not seem to be a reliable source. The book source is entirely plot summary from a quick read. None of these seem to be making an impact on notability, and per prior AfDs, searches for sources have historically turned up very little, making the THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument moot. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest" doesn't sound right. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the nominator not you, in a friendly way. Kazama16 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it still doesn't sound right to say it like that, and I don't think it is in a "friendly way". Sometimes it is really hard to help you, like I already told you before not to work on your Draft:Takeda Takahashi, because that character is not notable, but yet you still persist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bring my past to this discussion, it has nothing to do with it. Kazama16 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect My prior rationale remains the same. I agree that it should have been discussed before it was restored. Perhaps it's worth pinging the restorer to this discussion to maybe give their opinion? Personally, I would not have taken it to AfD knowing the outcome will be the same, just redirect it. Conyo14 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was likely going to cause some dispute if I did BLAR it, hence why I chose to AfD it. Additionally, I have already pinged the restorer, and they are actively participating in the discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had drafted my response before seeing the restorer's active discussion Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I think the article needs clean up and a trim to focus on best sources, from a search I'm left with a sense of sufficient coverage, beyond trivial mentions in a game review, of Pit as a multimedia character not reducible to a Kid Icarus redirect (perhaps only just, but even so). Participants in the discussion may already be aware of this IGN article which covers Pit across several media appearances outside Kid Icarus. In addition to that, I found this Bleeding Cool article reporting on and assessing a Pit figurine. And the first chapter of this academic book from Bloomsbury Publishing includes coverage of the Pit character in the Kid Icarus franchise. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A figurine/merchandise doesn't help WP:GNG; thus the article is still in a weak state. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been checked properly; the nominator has only looked over the reception section without checking the further reading section and assumed that it is not notable per the other two previous AFDS. Kazama16 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking evidence that the nominator has not done that, I must say that as someone who has, it would not have caused me to change my mind about nominating it. All of the further reading section is either WP:ROUTINE articles coming about due to Uprising's announcement or an interesting but unreliable student article for a student magazine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for missing that, most video game character articles lack significant external reading sections, and additionally, those with them typically cite the articles in the Reception. In any case, per Cukie Gherkin above, I see no real significant coverage on Pit as a character in here. One is a review of an action figure unrelated to Pit's character, and the majority of the others are routine Kid Icarus Uprising coverage. The Writer's Block Magazine source looks decent, but I am unfamiliar with their reliability. In any case, one good source out of a swamp of them isn't really enough to justify Pit as an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see much commentary in the IGN article. It seems more to be a summary of Pit's appearances, and any commentary that could be taken out of it is cherry picking. The Siliconera article is less about Pit and more about the make of a figurine than anything. The book source seems to be more about the Kid Icarus game itself being compared to the game Athena. Anything relating to Pit is in regards to his character is just plot summary, though correct me if I've missed anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Nothing against articles getting revived, but this is still in the same place it was from the last AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect I get the feeling the user who revived the article does not "get" what significant coverage is. Sheer amount of sources will not rescue an article, quality over quantity is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Stage Max[edit]

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

I don't believe that this would meet WP:NVG, as I can find precious little about anywhere. This was unreferenced from its creation until I added a one source recently. However, this is the sole review (and as far as I can find source at all) that I can find. I found Nothing else on archive.org or google books, nothing on meta-critic or game-rankings, It doesn't even have a Mobygames page, instead simply being listed as an alias for Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2. Of course being a European game from 2005, it's more than possible there is a stack of EU VG-mags that aren't available online, but it's equally possible that playmainia was the only outlet to ever cover this version. The article says it was modeled after Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 in America and Dance Dance Revolution Strike in Japan, but neither of these games (which I would presume would be more notable) have articles either. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Video games. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find anything aside from the one source already used. Nothing on Newspapers.com either. Timur9008 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games - I was also unable to find any substantial coverage on Archive.org other than the Playmania review already on the article, all I found was trivial mentions in lists of release dates for upcoming games and this two sentence coverage in HobbyConsolas in a Christmas shopping guide that basically just says 'it's fun with friends and has 100 minutes of music', nothing demonstrating notability. Waxworker (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games, 1 short review is not enough to meet WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bez-MX[edit]

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

DePRODed with the rationale that coverage of the game in two reviews meets WP:GNG - I was unable to find any additional reviews on Archive.org, and I think that two reviews is insufficient to show notability. The Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth, but the mention in Softline is very brief and is largely about the developer, and coverage of the game there may be summarized as 'this game is coming out at some point and is based on defense projects by Ronald Reagan'. The article could be redirected to List of Apple II games, but I don't think non-notable entries should be on the list. Pinging involved editors - article creator @BOZ:, @Cunard:, who removed the PROD, and @Cocobb8:, who added the PROD. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if there are two potentially reliable journal sources, WP:AGEMATTERS. I don't see any lasting coverage of the video game after its release. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at WP:AGEMATTERS and that seems to be pertaining to older sources becoming less accurate over time, rather than having anything to do with needing more recent sources for lasting coverage. BOZ (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGEMATTERS doesn't apply here, that's more about the changing perception of events, not an old video game. You could argued WP:SUSTAINED perhaps. Not sure I agree with it, but it would be a plausible application at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - undecided on notability, but leaning towards not retaining the article. It's so short and vague that it hardly conveys anything to the reader, and it borders on COPYVIO territory in the way that the reception is largely lazy copy/pastes of review content. I could be persuaded otherwise if someone showed improvement was possible, but the article was created 4 years ago by an active editor, so I'm not hopeful that's happening. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's "Reception" section has been improved. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is a...minor upgrade, sure. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got non-trivial review coverage in Softalk and Computer Gaming World but still falls short of the typical threshold for passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says (in part):
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. ...
Analysis of the sources and the general notability guideline
Bez-MX received two reviews: a 499-word review from Computer Gaming World and an 834-word review from Softalk. Each of these sources meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline.
The general notability guideline says that "multiple sources are generally expected". wikt:multiple defines the word as meaning "more than one". The "multiple sources" requirement is also met.
There is no requirement to have more than two sources because the two sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about Bez-MX. These are from high-quality, highly-circulated gaming publications. Computer Gaming World had a circulation of 300,000, while Softalk had a circulation of 150,000.
The two reviews Bez-MX received were published four months apart which is sustained coverage. However, there is no requirement for articles about creative works like games, books, films, and television shows to meet Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time in having reviews published years later. That is because reviews are not the "Brief bursts of news coverage" discussed in the guideline. Reviews provide critical analysis of the creative work. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is applicable.
Sources
1. Shaw, Luther (July–August 1982). "Micro-Reviews: Bez-MX". Computer Gaming World. Vol. 2, no. 4. pp. 34–35. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.
  This is a 499-word review of Bez-MX. The review notes: "The real strength of BEZ-MX is in the advanced game which requires planning. In addition to the elements in the basic game, players of the advanced game must maintain industrial production in a war situation. Players assign the population of their countries to work on the farm, factory, airfield, or city. You can have the people work in these areas (which will help keep military goods in production) or you can hide your population in shelters (perserving population but ending production)."
2. Hunter, David (March 1982). "Reviews". Softalk. Vol. 2. p. 103. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.
  This is an 834-word review of Bez-MX. This page notes that David Hunter wrote the review. The review notes: "There is scoring in Bez-MX to determine who wins, though a low score does not necessarily indicate a badly played game. It is easy to rack up points bombing cities and farms, but destroying the more crucial things like the runway and factory are what help you win the game."
3. Article that does not provide significant coverage:
  1. "New Players". Softline. Vol. 1, no. 2. November 1981. p. 2. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.
    The article provides four words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The first two to look for are Bez-Mx and Bet-J, both based on current defense projects that President Reagan has given the go-ahead to in real life. Besnard is excited because he feels they're great strategy and action games. You lay down your strategy at the beginning of the game and then modify that strategy during real-time using game paddles. Bez-Mx and Bez-I should he available in December."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bez-MX to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of Cunard regarding the GNG. If consensus finds against retaining the article regardless, then ~~I would suggest~~ a merge to the List of Apple II games would be preferable to deletion per WP:PRESERVE and to provide a starting point should further sources materialize in the future. BOZ (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - per WP:THREE. As my comments above mention, the sourcing available isn't enough to sustain an article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Apple II games, it's close but not quite enough coverage to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:THREE is an essay that says to provide the three best sources. It does not say that three sources are needed. On the section of the talk page titled "why is three better than two?", the author wrote, "I don't think there's anything magic about three, but it seemed like a good number. My suggestion if people insist on three and not two, is to remind them that this is just an essay and people shouldn't be slaves to it."
The AfD nominator acknowledges that "the Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth". The sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about the subject. Since the Computer Gaming World and Softalk magazines are reputable and had wide circulation, they are good enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline since "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Aside from the AfD nominator, editors who have said the game does not meet the notability guideline have not explained why they think this. Do they think the sources are not high quality enough? Do they think the sources are not in-depth enough? Do they think that more than two sources are needed?
A merge to List of Apple II games would be better than deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. However, a merge would result in the loss of content to comply with the due weight policy.
Cunard (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with more coverage have been deleted for lack of sourcing. The fact is that keeping articles with this little sourcing is not the consensus of WP:VG and would be considered unusual in the best of times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This response still does not explain why these two sources are insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Do you think the two sources are not reputable enough? Do you think the two sources are not in-depth enough? Do you think more than two sources are needed? Or is there another reason I have not listed here? At AfD, articles with two high quality in-depth reliable sources usually are considered notable, so a Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games deviation from the general notability guideline ratified by the broader community would explain why some editors here have a higher bar. There is no subject-specific notability guideline for video games, so the general notability guideline is the one to follow. Cunard (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware THREE is an essay, but that doesn't automatically make it invalid - quite the opposite, I would think this is exactly the sort of scenario that it was created for. As I noted, the sourcing is so brief that the writer(s) can't even muster up coherent article about the subject. I've read the article. All it says is that it was a game that involves shooting and two reviewers thought it was okay. That's...almost nothing of substance. If that's all that can be extrapolated from these sources, then no, I don't believe it to be significant coverage. And even if it was significant coverage, that doesn't automatically save it from valid merge/redirect stances. What I'm saying falls within the points of WP:MERGEREASON as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the three sources in the article, there is potential for a decent expansion. (I know this wasn't your only argument, but as I do plan to expand the article, I felt the need to comment). Skyshiftertalk 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skyshifter - I'm open to changing my mind if someone proves it, but I kind of figured if it was possible, it would be done by now. Ping me if you work on it before the AFD closes and I'll revisit my stance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Context matters, and for a 1981 game released for the Apple II, I don't see why we shouldn't consider two reliable, independent and significant coverage sources enough to establish notability. Skyshiftertalk 22:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two reviews listed above by Cunard are sufficient for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk)

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently unredirected by another user, who reverted on the basis of wanting a proper discussion as opposed to the previous BLAR. Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally pinging @Kung Fu Man, who previously BLAR'd the article, and @Grapesoda22, who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While being bold is all nice and well, the consensus of the last deletion discussion of keeping from 2020 is not so old as to be ignored. The nomination claims there to be many uncited statements, but actually there is only the lead, where references are not generally expected, and one more unreferenced part where still the primary source is present. So just taking the referenced part, we already have an article which is beyond the length of a stub, ergo this topic fulfills the requirements of notability WP:GNG/WP:WHYN. Additionally, while the BLAR claims that trying to find sources has proven fruitless, the previous deletion discussion lists three web articles with the ghosts as the main topic (+ the CNN video), only a fraction of one of which has been used in the article, as listed by (Oinkers42) and detailed by Darkknight2149. Lastly, if the sources here were significant *to* Pac-Man, but not on their own, again as claimed in the BLAR, then why have no attempts been made to integrate at least some of them into Pac-Man as is suggested by Wikipedia:Deletion policy?

Now as the first deletion discussion was not that long ago, pinging the further participants in case they are still around and interested in the topic: @Namcokid47, Eddie891, Jhenderson777, Balle010, TTN, Rtkat3, Toughpigs, Captain Galaxy, Piotrus, Dream Focus, Shooterwalker, and Ret.Prof:. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis Let's break this down:

This Kotaku article is an examination of notes regarding the character AI...which pertains strictly to the scope of the original Pac-Man as a game element within Pac-Man. It's the equivalent of making an article for a video game gun because the gun is the strongest in that particular title.
Business Insider's article is also regarding Pac-Man development info, though at least gives a bit more commentary on the ghosts separate of the source in terms of design. It doesn't however help to establish why they should be separate.
This Game Informer article is weirdly more reception for Pac-Man than the Ghosts? It can be cited for reception but won't be the biggest amount of commentary, but it's also the strongest source for actual reception. And this information is mostly already cited in the article.
the aforementioned CNN article which goes hand in hand with the Kotaku ref.
Now these are just the sources brought up during the AfD, but one has to seriously consider what a source is saying. Additionally trying to hold up a 2020 AfD as a gold standard for a Keep when things have improved (including several Smash Bros. related character articles that had similarly weak reception) is a folly. Previously I made a comment that the Koopa Troopa article should have been kept because there was nowhere for that information to go. Here I contend the opposite: the worthwhile information is perfectly fine to merge into the Pac-Man game or series article, and what's here when that's considered is just too weak relying on lists, quips and WP:ITSPOPULAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the explanation of the sources above, we should still be ok for !keep. 2020 was around when I started participating in AfD and the discussion seems to be about of the same quality as the ones now... Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've even done peer-reviewed articles about them: [6], although some might be tongue-in-cheek, we could at least argue the social impact of the ghosts. clicking on the Gscholar link in the lead brings up several journal articles; it seems the "Pac Man ghosts" are used as an analogue for a variety of things being studied in several fields. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree and Kung Fu Man's source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The previous consensus still holds. Kung Fu Man's source analysis didn't mention the source that I added and mentioned in the AfD discussion -- Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now. I may come back to this later, but I feel like there is room for expansion with the sourcing this article has right now. If it can't be for whatever other reason that gets brought then I will lean towards redirect (merge). That being said, has anyone checked for Japanese sources yet? Just thought would be worth mentioning...... Captain Galaxy 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.destructoid.com/blinky-inky-pinky-and-clyde-a-small-onomastic-study/ and https://kotaku.com/pac-man-ghosts-are-smarter-than-you-think-1683857357 prove reliable sources give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Despite BLAR-ing it (and still feeling BLAR is a positive motion), I feel the found sources now do indicate some notability. I would however suggest to any editors currently not engaged in other projects to work the sources in, as "well it's on the AfD page!" doesn't really give a good indication especially four years later, and not in light of improving standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Destructoid reference was in the section you deleted. I think the information is better portrayed in a table than just text in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this section? [7] Dream Focus 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better approach would probably be bullet points and using the Nihongo template to be honest, but that can be done when the dev section is rewritten. Tables in the middle of character articles unless you're doing a list tend to be pretty rough on the reader. (I also feel some consideration should be done that most of the later added ghosts may not have the same level of notability, especially given those citation needed tags, but I digress as that's another matter).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, characters are well known and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this discussion has demonstrated there is coverage in games media journalism and peer-reviewed academic research. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have some concerns about the level of independence from the original game, but I think that there is something to be said about the AfD result of Koopa Troopa essentially boiling down to Koopa Troopa being iconic enough, as demonstrated from sources, that it should be kept even if the reception was a little light. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good faith re-statement from last AFD. Consensus can change, but I believe this is settled. Even as thinly characterized sprites, they have received more than enough discussion in reliable sources. The sources explain their importance to gaming history. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight.works[edit]

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

Non-notable company per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Contested PROD. There is not really much secondary coverage on the company. The purported notability is on the AppStore success of one title, Hashiriya Drifter. Sources in the article are primary or have a WP:PROMO feel, with this source even inviting readers to become part of the team. A very quick WP:BEFORE only finds some coverage from Nintendo Life about a allegations of the conduct of the studio making 'scam' games. None of this seems to cumulatively provide evidence of sustained, significant coverage about the studio that would warrant an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared a draft of an article for the next upload to improve its quality. This company resembles 11bit studios, which developed Frostpunk and other games, but not everyone is familiar with Frostpunk. VollyM (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to locate anything meeting the criteria. BBC pointed to an article in #diez, but on review of the original (google translate) it appears to also clearly fail ORGIND (the BBC coverage does not really go beyond that the article exists). It seems unlikely we'll be able to locate sources meeting the criteria beyond doubt. I'm not sure what VollyM means by their comment, if they want to keep working on a draft, I'm happy to support that (it can be requested at WP:REFUND if not closed that way), but in my judgement it is unlikely for eligible sources to exist. I would recommend making use of the draft review process if that is the path embarked upon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that they were kicked of the Playstation store sometime earlier this year (see [8][9][10]) and appear to be publishing more games under a bunch of different labels (see [11] and this comment in particular), though i'm unsure if that's enough to meet notability guidelines but figured I post this here (first time posting in these deletion discussions by the way so apologies if I did something wrong.) Knockknock987 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! Deletion discussions are for everyone and it's important everyone shares their views in the context of the deletion policy. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong at all. Welcome to the discussion and thank you for caring about trying to do this correctly. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vrxces and Alpha3031 make a good case for deletion, and my own search uncovered nothing new. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG and NCORP.Dowrylauds (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence or even clear assertion of notability, plus lack of secondary sources for the article. Google search produces very few online mentions at all. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell[edit]

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

The sources below do not provide the necessary WP:DEPTH needed for an article on the topic, and I can't find any that would. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no reviews found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some brief mentions in print magazines but nothing what I would call significant coverage: [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Mika1h (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It still feels like the only good source is [16] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. As with the last AfD, most coverage about her is about a single controversy, and it feels undue to spin off into its own page. Still, I doubt this will reach a different outcome than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, always specify a target article if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect. We have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Star Wars, its worlds and characters on many different platforms (film, TV, books, video games, maybe board games (?)) and the closer should be guessing which one you think is the most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm, as WP:ATD. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but can be preserved in a logical place. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm's analysis. For the target, I would assume everyone above meant for it to be merged to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series, as that was the target proposed in the last, No Consensus AFD discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo[edit]

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

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find anything like a suitable source to prove notability, and there are none among the feeble refs in the article. The thing looks like a confection worked up by a paid editor or employee of the company, all fluff and no substance. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]