Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Archives

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2010 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2009 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2008 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2007 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2006 December November October September August July June May April 2005 September August July May

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk
Archives Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178
Guidelines Manual of Style talk Article naming talk Sources talk Search engine Templates Wikidata Guide
Departments Assessment Reference library talk Newsletter talk Current issue Draft
Articles Article alerts Deletion discussions Essential articles New articles Popular pages Vital articles Recognized content Good content Featured content Requested articles
Task forces Esports talk Indie Nintendo talk Sega talk Video game characters talk Visual novels talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk List of active editors
Project watchlist view talk edit changes

Points of interest related to Video games on Wikipedia: Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Assessment – Style – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

See also Games-related deletions.

Fuzz Academy (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)

Can't find a lick of reliable secondary coverage apart from a one sentence in an NPR profile of the creator, a successful author. I've added mention to the creator's biography based on that source. This can go. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marie Lu, where nom added a cited mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Melissa Batten (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:EVENT. Not shown to have continued coverage beyond news reports at the time of the incident and consequent investigation. A state representative later cited the case when a state gun control law was passed six years later (per this article), but this seems like a passing mention. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Crime, Events, and Washington. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The event led to legislation, even if the mention of the original event was brief in context of the legislation. Between the in-depth coverage of the event and the eventual lasting effect, I would consider it notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia.

  Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is sigcov in this academic article from 2015 [1] which seems pretty good and analytical about the case and its impact. Weak keep unless I can find more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There also appears to be significant coverage (maybe only of the perpetrator? I can't tell, he had some notability as a creator outside of the crime. it covers the game development which due to timing i believe may intersect with the murder) in Designers & Dragons by Shannon Appelcline. So keep probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also a relatively lengthy description of the circumstances surrounding the murder in a debate on gun rights from 2013 as an example of lasting coverage [2] Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also several paragraphs from the NYT in 2013. [3] PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Seattle Times and NYT articles on the gun control debate that you cite aren't significant coverage – there are only a couple paragraphs dedicated to the crime. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you define as "significant coverage"? Per WP:SIGCOV it is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'd say several paragraphs counts, yeah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are both lengthy articles that briefly touch upon multiple crimes, including Batten's murder, alongside each other. They do not look to me like they"[address] the topic directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV. Bridget (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Touching upon multiple crimes doesn't have much effect on whether it is sigcov. Criminology books regularly cover multiple crimes and that doesn't make the coverage not sigcov. A sentence is plainly a trivial mention, a short paragraph is not enough, I think multiple paragraphs is sigcov... It definitely does address the topic directly and in detail. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the results of the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Melissa Batten. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by PARAKANYAA and Anonrfjwhuikdzz, especially McNamara (2014–2015). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Habromania (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; subject has lack of significant coverage online, with only a single article from an unknown reliability website being passable. Other sources include the game's profile in reputable sources like IGN which include no significant coverage other than a single trailer. Other sources includes the game's website (primary source), an Instagram link (removed) and a marketplace link to a soft toy associated with the game. The game does not display sufficient notability and significant coverage to warrant its article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason for there to be an article about a game that's three (or four) years out with little coverage. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MimirIsSmart and Notaoffensivename's rationales. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bendy (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 does not assert notability and is cited to unreliable sources. Attempts were made to redirect it, but they were reverted under the logic that it was featured on a different language Wikipedia, which is not a valid argument to keep an article. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. λ NegativeMP1 21:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bendy and the Ink Machine#Plot. ApexParagon (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Previous AfD in 2010 was not very convincing, with a lot of trivial coverage thrown around. Notability is not inherited, so a game engine is not notable because the games it was used in are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. JTZegers (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article currently includes one piece of significant coverage: review in a print magazine fr:Linux Pratique. The previous AfD provided a link to Google Scholar search, the first two results are significant coverage: research papers about Total Annihilation: Spring (previous name of the engine): [4], [5]. Those three pieces of SIGCOV are enough for notability. If this discussion still determines the article to be deleted, I think the alternative to deletion is to merge the article to Total Annihilation#Engine remakes. --Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like the engine would be off-topic to mention in the Total Annihilation article itself, it's practically advertising as it only cites its own page. With regards to the research papers, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not passed as they do not show how it is significant to the general reader. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but I don't quite follow how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is related to notability. The papers show that the game is used in the field of research of artificial intelligence in video games. It's up to the editor(s) of the article to present that information palatable to the general reader. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding sources -- xasperio

Smartfoxserver (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 doesn't seem to meet WP:NWEB and it seems like there aren't many sources about it at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any sources that would meet WP:GNG. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also can't find any reasonable sources. Laura240406 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TzarN64 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are literally no secondary sources to support this article. Does not meet the standards of notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asaba Jumah (born 2005) (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)

Contested PROD, only mentions anywhere are on blog sites, social media and a site called "Jetbits" (freeware maybe?) Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Zero sourcing found, only another article in draft space and a wix site. Very non notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Video games, Computing, Internet, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All the sources are not reliable and a WP:Before did not yield any positive results. The subject fails WP:GNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reasoning has been provided why the current sources are all unsuitable. NAUME GOU (talk) 11:45, 02 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant sources found to establish notability for subject. Fails WP:GNG Frank Ken (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please sir that article I think it is good of sourcs NAUME GOU (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Regards,  KB~Abhiimanyu7  talk  14:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG no significant refrences to support topic. ⋆⁺ ཐི Wakabenga ཋྀ ⁺⋆ (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks In-depth coverage for this person, not notable to be on Wikipedia. Non-independent sources like Bayelsaunitedfc.com.ng do not contribute to notability. No evidence of notable achievements or widespread recognition in reliable, independent sources. The article does not justify retention. Editz2341231 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per the existing arguments for deletion, and since someone asked, because the existing citations are all self-published by the article's subject. Rubbish coverage. Yue🌙 07:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TzarN64 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails notability. Given sources are primary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some sources but not reliable sources for GNG. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is undoubtedly failing notability.Almandavi (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability aside, this is unambiguously self promotion, given that article creator had posted the article subject's face (for some reason AI art) at his user page, proving him to be the same individual as the article's subject and making this article appropriate for deletion through WP:G11. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Falanghe (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)

Technically this was WP:BLARed by Pppery back in 2024 and reverted by the creator, so I'm here instead of BLARing again.

Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Not independently notable of Kerbal Space Program, effectively no information not already at Kerbal Space Program#Pre-development. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Brazil. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kerbal Space Program per WP:NPERSON being failed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kerbal Space Program. Yue🌙 07:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per @Yue. TzarN64 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect WP:GNG does require independent notable sourcing from Kerbal Space Program. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to delete it, just make it a draft. Lertaheiko (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble (DVD based games console) (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:NPRODUCT. Very limited coverage provided. The article is mostly sourced by user-generated Marketplace product listings, which is far from a reliable source. The LocoLabs sources are primary references by the manufacturer. The Marketing Week source seems to be an affiliate announcement about Bandai's marketing campaign for the product. There just unfortunately isn't enough evidence of any mainstream coverage to suggest that this is a product notable enough to merit encyclopedic treatment. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Aside from nom's valid arguments, the article's creator already failed WP:COIEDIT by contributing greatly to the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a couple blogs out there, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I acknowledge I created this article in the talk page, albeit not using the template correctly. I don't understand why the deletion though? The product existed, that's not in dispute. Had I not stated I was involved in the latter stages, would there still be an objection? What is gained by hiding knowledge? I'm sure it will get deleted, but I'm not sure why? What facts are disputed? MrMarmite (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here seems to be a lack of secondary coverage in reliable sources, which is required for most articles. See WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT for the relevant guidelines. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator TzarN64 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SuperTuxKart (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 articles fails WP:GNG. Half of the sources referenced are either first-party sources from Twitter and github, and the sources thats actually unrelated to the subject (Sources 27, 26, 24) does not constitute notablity as basically no coverage of Super Tux Kart was seen in those articles. TzarN64 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. Linux Journal and OMG! Ubuntu! seem to have pretty regular coverage of the subject, albeit if not the most in-depth. But I'd note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And if I'm reading the first AfD correctly, I think notability was established on the back of the list references as identified by the nominator, though that was in 2010, and NVIDEOGAME and NSOFTWARE have become more fleshed-out since. With that said, even within the article describes the sources pretty well (though the URLs are no longer live, they can easily be found on the Wayback Machine):
  • Min, Andrew (October 2007). "Top Five Racing Games" (PDF). Full Circle Magazine (6). Retrieved 4 July 2013.
  • Oxford, Adam (February 12, 2009). "12 of the best games for your Linux netbook". TechRadar. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved July 4, 2013.
  • Sbarski, Peter (January 21, 2008). "Top 5 best (free) open source games". APC. Archived from the original on January 14, 2012. Retrieved July 5, 2012.

Yeah, while these sources may leave some wanting, my BEFORE turns up a lot of the similar. I think given the breadth of the coverage, that would make up for the albeit limited coverage in the sources presently listed. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Was no reading done of the first AfD for this article, which ended as "keep"? That AfD mentioned it got covered in multiple magazines, e ven besides what was demonstrated by User:Bobby Cohn. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, which is why it fails GNG. A topic covered in a magazine does not demostrate notablity. TzarN64 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They *are* significant coverage though? SIGCOV 1, SIGCOV 2, SIGCOV 3. This also seems like SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found none of these sources listed at WP:RSP. TzarN64 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:RSPMISSING. Sources can be reliable without being listed at WP:RSP. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And usually published print magazines are considered reliable by default unless there is proof to the contrary. Magazine implies an editorial staff. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have never heard of these magazines in my life, and I’ve seen none of these magazines used in articles. Are you really sure some random magazines demonstrate notability? TzarN64 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Linux Format, Linux Journal and Linux Voice all have their own articles. They are certainly not "random magazines". Komputer Świat is Polish so it doesn't have an article here but I'm gonna assume it's equally as notable, because why would it not be. It's a full circulation gaming magazine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These articles all rely excessively on first party sources and similarly show no sign of notablity. Nominating those for deletion later. TzarN64 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you should look harder before saying something has "no sign of notability". I already found a source and put it on the talk pages. Looking beyond the sources currently used on the page is critical because often editors do not look hard enough or are unaware of what is a reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Komputer Świat has a comprehensive article at the Polish Wikipedia here. It would pass notability for an article here even, if someone would be interested in translating it. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per excellent source searching above by Zx and Bobby Cohn. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable per sources provided above by Zxcvbnm and Bobby Cohn. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above print magazine sources. Note: Komputer Świat is the Polish equivalent of Computer Bild magazine. --Mika1h (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above great research. The subject on Google has a good number of detailed and minor mentions in a minute of related search. WP:BEFORE. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, game clearly passes GNG with reliable coverage as indicated by other users. Doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was performed here. MidnightMayhem 09:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This it notable in my view. It has a significant amount of RSes covering it, certainly enough to justify keeping. It is also a well written and visually appealing page, which is not enough on its own but bolsters inclusion in my opinion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG. Sources are not only primary. There are many independent and reliable sources. Good number of coverage in quick google search. WikiMentor01 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Blast (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)

Doesn't seem like a notable video game. Despite apparently being a big success, it has only gotten trivial mentions in reliable sources, besides the Pocket Gamer article that feels like a press release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Pocket Gamer is a RS per Project Video Games here, so we have this [6] and [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GNG says that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is also a RS, with a review [8], any of the sources listed here would be ok [9]. Common Sense media has also reviewed the game [10]. Another RS Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, that's a bit better. I still won't withdraw the nomination, as it only has 2 reviews. Usually the threshold is a few of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Oaktree I believe the sources makes this article barely survive deletion Scooby453w (talk)
• There are sources posted on the talk page, WP:CSM and Gamezebo which is WP:VGRS.

That being said... the second line is copied from the Pocket Gamer source with minimal changes, and the Gameplay section is copied without attribution from Fandom. The article needs a complete rewrite. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Blast does not seem like a WP:RS. So yeah, that's 2 reviews from reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Peak Games, its developer. One of those match-3 games that has heavy prime time/daytime television advertisements obscuring what the object of the game actually is to draw people in (it isn't blasting toons or having fun with them, it's grinding match-3 levels with some bare continuity involving toon characters). Nathannah • 📮 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- not in a developed state, but found these three sources: (https://www.criticalblast.com/articles/2021/07/31/toon-blast-honest-review, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/app-reviews/toon-blast, https://www.gamezebo.com/reviews/toon-blast-review-saving-parents-one-game-at-a-time/) when reviewing it, and I think it's notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Critical Blast does not seem like a reliable website at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense and two Gamezebo articles should be enough for GNG. This isn't Call of Duty, we have critical discussion in two publications, instead of three. I don't think we need to be so hung up on the number of reviews. This is more than we find for other mobile games that pop up here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed here in a French newspaper. [11] and this is listed as a RS at Project Video Games [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources provided by oaktree have convinced me im not longer having my vote as "weak" keep Scooby453w (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reviews by Gamezebo and Common Sense, and the article by PocketGamer are enough for GNG. Additional sources that I found: Softonic review (not necessarily a reliable source per WP:VG/RS) and the game is mentioned several times in this academic book published by Springer Nature: [13] (not necessarily significant coverage). --Mika1h (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peak Games. In my opinion, the coverage provided does not demonstrate standalone notability. Video game news is so niche and scarce that sometimes smaller outlets will cover any game so long as someone pays them. Two outlets reviewed the game, so what? This article's existence is basically a free advertisement for the company, for a game that doesn't have any unique mechanics or gameplay – another run-of-the-mill, free-to-play mobile game ripping off Candy Crush. Yue🌙 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Kingdoms (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. This game has got to hold the record for fewest words of review written per dollar earned, as there's been nearly nothing written about Rise of Kingdoms's gameplay. The article's reception section cites three unreliable sources and an Arkansas newspaper.

There's been slightly more written about its marketing and sales, but I don't think it's enough to hold an article about the game together. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reasoning has been provided why the current sources are all unsuitable. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources mostly don't constitute as notability after assessment (above). Not much content in the article aside from its advertising, basic gameplay and some reviews. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to interpret this as a request for a source assessment table.

(continued)

Of the sources that come close to meeting reliability standards, there's one acceptable source reporting one specific announcement (Pocket Gamer), one that's probably acceptable if rather unusual (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette), and one source that's deficient in multiple ways (Game Rant). I don't think this adds up to WP:GNG in a way that the article can be primarily based on reliable sources.

~ A412 ^talk! 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your basis for assuming that sources like the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette don't contribute to notability? Cortador (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I described Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as "one that's probably acceptable if rather unusual". My contention is that it's the only source here that contributes to notability. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PULSAR: Lost Colony (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)

Game appears to fail WP:GNG, with the only two publications that are reliable and covered it being Rock Paper Shotgun and The Games Machine, therefore causing it to fall just short of the typical threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Eurogamer mentioned them too in an article and they're on the reliable list. I know Game Rant isn't on that list, but they covered them 2 weeks ago and appear to be an decent publication. I think the article just needs to be updated, and I have no issue with doing that. Bobtinin (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the link to Eurogamer to confirm whether it is WP:SIGCOV? Game Rant does not count towards notability, per WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[15] Mentioned in passing as having accepted by Steam Greenlight. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Game Rant is fine for topics "of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information", which a mundane space game falls under. Cortador (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found a GotY list on Giant Bomb that talks about the game to a significant degree, though am not sure if taken together this is enough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on just how much there is about it and whether it isn't user generated. It would be best to link the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably referring to [16]. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that article was not written by Giant Bomb staff, just Danny Baranowski, who I am pretty sure is not a member of their staff. Being essentially a reposted blogpost, I don't believe it qualifies as reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to be written by an official staff member. We don't usually discount articles written by freelancers or guest columnists if it's in a reliable publication. WP:VG/S states for Giant Bomb: "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's editorial staff." --Mika1h (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The final discussion on Giant Bomb at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 116#Situational sources states that it is "reliable only if written by staff writers". I believe you are misinterpreting that description. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I am. The context in that discussion was about distinguishing between staff written and user-generated content. I've not seen anything specifically dismissing freelancers/guest writers. This piece is not user-generated since it has "Giant Bomb Staff" on the byline. For example, other reliable sources, like Rock Paper Shotgun have dozens of contributors (i.e. not "staff writers"), we do not dismiss articles written by them. --Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a guest writer, but that is not the same as a freelance "contributor". Baranowski is a composer by trade and as far as I know only wrote that one article for them? It's the exact same as citing the opinion of you, me, or some person on social media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's very much the same as a piece written by a freelancer/guest columnist. It is vetted by "Giant Bomb Staff". Something written by you or me on Giant Bomb wouldn't get that treatment. It would be user-generated content, which this article by Baranowski is not. --Mika1h (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Giant Bomb's coverage is fairly thin but I think it's just enough to count as SIGCOV and with the two proper reviews it just barely manages to reach notability. --Mika1h (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs work, but the sourcing is is just about good enough. Cortador (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Eirik Suhrke
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#List of Strogg in Quake II