Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Points of interest related to Video games on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject

Deletion Sorting
Project

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games, computer or video. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Game}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Games, computer or video.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

1 Game-related deletions

[edit] Game-related deletions

[edit] Turaga (Bionicle)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Turaga (Bionicle)

Articles for deletion/Turaga (Bionicle) (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Turaga (Bionicle) (3rd nomination)

Relisting per DRV: AFD 2 nom: This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Still asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and it should finally be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge into a list of characters, failing that, delete Sceptre ^(talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Wikipedia:Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist. Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy all seem to apply here. These seem like reliable sources. The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. But it does demonstrate that the topic is encyclopedic. Plus, plenty of Google hits for the character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Linked "encyclopedia" is a 160-page licensed guide written by the same author who writes licensed Bionicle children's books. I'm reasonably sure it is neither an independent nor reliable source of info on pretty much any Wikipedia article, and calling it an encyclopedia demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. As for this, there's one book that mentions the franchise as a whole in the real world and would be a hugely valuable source for the main Bionicle article (but not this one), then some juvenile fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source nonetheless. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For a different article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete, has no potential to grow from a snippet of plot. There are no sources to use to fix it, and the article is three years old with no appreciable improvement in the area of notability or referencing. It is valuable work to excise that which cannot be improved from the project, just as it is important to focus on that which can. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does have potential to grow, at least some sources exist, the article has been improved over those years, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Link a reliable source that has been added to the article in those three years? We can copyedit it, we can make it longer, or include more plot, or prettify it. Those are, in a sense, improvements. But they don't improve the key problem: this is an original synthesis of fictional material. This key problem is as old as this article, inherent to this article, and can only be solved by removing this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep an article not having been improved is not reason to delete it. Content about the details of a work does not require a separate independent source,since the most reliable source will be the work itself in almost all cases. DGG (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Content about cheese does not require a separate independent source, since the most reliable source will be cheese itself in almost all cases.

That's silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to Bionicle. Major fiction concept, needs Wikipedia coverage so the readers who are not Bionicle fans can actullay understand what is written in article Bionicle, among others. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. The material seems to exist on another wiki so nothing is being "destroyed". --Craw-daddy | T | 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triat (World of Darkness)

Non-notable fictional gods used in a role-playing game. No independent sources seem to be turned up by a search on "triat world darkness" on Google or Google News (which, of course) doesn't cover everything. This is a non-notable part of a significantly notable game (which I'm *not* disputing). If there are any significant independent sources located I will glady withdraw my nomination. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Werewolf: The Apocalypse- While I agree with the nom that this certainly does not have enough real-world notability on its own, it did play a major part in the plot and game mechanics. It definitly needs re-written from an out of universe perspective however. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I wouldn't be opposed to such a merger. Anyone who knows the importance of these fictional elements to the game is welcome to do such a merge. It should be noted that Werewolf: The Apocalypse is already bloated with lots of in-universe writing, and this article should be massively trimmed being doing any sort of merge there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per years of precedent regarding all things fannish. The Triat exists in Werewolf and (under different names) in Mage and is one of the major unifying points of the old World of Darkness universe. Considering WoD is one of the most popular gaming franchises in existence, and considering we have every damn Pokemon ever organized into several Pokedexen, I think this is a definite keep. Haikupoet (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm not arguing that the WoD isn't notable, I'm arguing that this part of it isn't, or at the very least the article as written does absolutely nothing to demonstrate this notability. As I stated above, my Google searches (which don't hit everything of course) didn't seem to turn up any independent resources. I fully expected this argument to be made, i.e. something like "WoD games are notable, hence every small part of it is notable", but I'm waiting for the evidence that I was unable to locate. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep because the alternative would be to merge contents into several articles that are already quite long, including at least Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Mage: The Ascension. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They are quite long because they're already full on lots of in-universe material that should likely be trimmed down. What in this article, besides the first sentence, is non in-universe material that puts this into context? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Merging is left as an editorial decision.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TaskMaker

Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There are certainly mentions and reviews in the contemporary computer press which could be obtained (searches found the references but no full-text of those articles so far for me). Seems to have been a game of at least some interest at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you show me some of these sources that you found please? I didn't find anything substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I found references to reviews in Apple-related magazines of the time, but no full-text of those magazines is available to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep and Merge with Storm Impact. It seems to be a notable part of their history being their first game and all. CRocka05 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Geography in the Suikoden series

Fails to meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged. The individual things treated there are not appropriate for full articles, and this is a reasonable place to put them. In practice this is an arrangement of material, not really viewed separately. I find it really ironic that given all the debating on fiction, there isnt yet complete acceptance of the middle way of handling things. DGG (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Problem I agree these are not appropriate for full articles. So how does putting multiple non-notable items together allow them to pass the WP:GNG? Randomran (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  - The same way any notable article can be broken down into numerous non-notable components. Ford MF (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    - Right, but where are the reliable and independent sources to show that this article is notable? Randomran (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no non-trivial coverage reliable verifiable secondary sources present to establish notability. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. We don't need a whole article on a list of game locations that the reader doesn't need to know to understand the game. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep/Cleanup with a preference to merge/redirect (to Suikoden) if immediatism prevails and this article is found wanting. No, this article isn't close to what it should eventually be, as it's entirely too list heavy at the moment without enough real world context. But just because real world context is annoying to get at requiring Japanese translation doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it'll just be slow going. This is a single article for the setting of an ~8 game or so series with various spinoffs that viable development information has already been found in some other articles; it can be given time. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If the game is notable, then keep; if the game is not notable, then delete. (By the way, Second Life does not seem to have its own geography article, and Second Life is notable.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the game and series are notable. See Suikoden (video game) and Suikoden. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The game is notable, but its geography is not. Notability is measured against the general notability guideline which requires coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Against this standard, the article fails. (If other articles fail too, that's irrelevant right now. Articles will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.) Randomran (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence I made a neutral comment, which does not state a position for delete or keep - informing an editor that the series and game are in fact notable. (Quick edit: It appears I put my comment under the wrong person, which may have prompted your response, I'm moving to the right location) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. My comment wasn't directed at you per se, but at the main comment: that it doesn't entirely matter if the game itself is notable. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - does not follow the WP:Writing about fiction guidelines, or WP:Notability guidelines, and I don't see how the article could be altered to adhere to them. Interested contributors may wish to transwiki to a gaming-specific encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It could be altered to something closer to Ivalice or World of Final Fantasy VIII, which are both good articles. It will undoubtedly take time and research, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline.

Note to closer: If some measure of good faith is being looked for, I think a rename to "World of Suikoden" and possibly some additional merging / reworking could certainly be done to improve the article, and I'd be willing to give that a shot. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. My faculties and schedule being what they are at the moment, I am forced to just add a warm body for this side and note my support for DGG. This is an arrangement of material, a valuable and often vital feature that tends to go unnoticed in favor of acronyms with WP: in front of them when matters are being wrangled. A further thank-you to SnowFire. Great big articulate argument coming when cited limitations permit. --Kiz o r 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep as I would have to think that these books can be used to better reference the article and serve as reliable sources. Plus, clear reader/editor interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per LGRC. This should be doable as a topic. Mango juice^talk 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - No notability asserted through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. This is entirely OR, or based on non-reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete No notability, no demonstration of RS. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Kizor. This has merit. User:Krator (t c) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. This is the right thing to have here. No objection to a rename to "world of...." Hobit (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep also per DGG, seems like an eminently reasonable way to proceed with these type of fictional elements. RMHED (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per everyone's favorite wikimachine, DGG (why do I see this guy all over the place? does he leave the house ever?). Ford MF (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The article totally consists of in-universe material without any real-world information on its development or reception. It is simply a list of locations, indiscriminate in regards to even in-game notability. Wikipedia is neither a travel guide nor an indiscriminate repository of information. Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can those people !voting keep provide some suggestions as to where to find sourcing for this information? Corvus cornix_talk 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)