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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

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

This subject doesn't appear to be notable. I scoured through everything for a BEFORE, including Japanese sources, Books sources, sources from the early 2000s, and Scholar sources. I found a genuinely fantastic source from SyFy, which can be viewed here: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/pokemon-electric-tale-of-pikachu-manga.

Beyond that, though, is very little. There's some trivia articles from Valnet, which generally don't count for notability, but that's about it, and none of them are really SIGCOV of the entire manga series. The current source in the article is half-decent, but it's very barebones coverage (It's generic but it sold well). I found another hit in a scholarly paper, but it was just verifying the same sales info that I found previously. There's an interview source in here, but that falls under WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't count for notability.

There's scattered bits here and there, but nothing here for a strong, concrete article that satisfies any notability guideline. An AtD for now is to List of Pokémon manga. While not the greatest article, it allows for a preservation of page history should stronger sourcing come about, or if that list ever gets a revamp. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernight Games

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NWEB. Secondary sources in the article are MPOGD (listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S) and OMGN (2 refs: [1], [2]) both are very brief news stories (the other made longer by copypasting developer forum post). Audiogames.net article seems to contain a press release for Monarchy, one of Evernight's games, so it counts as a primary source. Mika1h (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Mika1h (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Home

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

This subject has no significant coverage. My BEFORE yielded nothing barring WP:GAMEGUIDE content and WP:ROUTINE news coverage of updates, as well as trivial mentions of the app's connectivity with Sword and Shield. This subject has no actual reviews or pieces of commentary that would indicate this to be independently notable. All citations in the article, barring GAMEGUIDE content, are PRIMARY sources. This article is better off redirected to List of Pokémon video games, where the subject is listed in-depth already and is listed in the context of other games in the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Insufficient amounts of critical commentary besides this I found. Still not enough, IMO, to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Same - I had a look and couldn't find much commentary on the game beyond the TheGamer article. The list of games does seem to be the place for it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Pokémon

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

This article falls afoul of multiple different rationales and guidelines, which I'll go over now.

-The article's scope is unclear. It's titled "Gameplay of Pokémon", but is primarily discussing Pokémon battling. Additionally, it is only covering the gameplay of the main series of Pokémon video games, and not the gameplay of any game that diverges from that basic gameplay style. I've already merged some of this content to Pokémon (video game series), and while it needs work, this content really only pertains to that article and not to the franchise as a whole, making a spin-out unnecessary.

- This article fails WP:VGSCOPE. It goes into excessive detail about various game mechanics, and is a gross violation of guideline 7 in VGSCOPE, which states that excessive listing of gameplay concepts is not a valid spin-out rationale.

-A source search for notability only yields WP:ROUTINE coverage on gameplay changes when new games come out, as well as WP:VALNET articles that do not provide notability per WP:VG/RS. A search through Books yields only WP:Trivial mentions or is discussing Pokémon Go's gameplay, which is unrelated to the scope of this article. Scholar yields more of the aforementioned finds, but also has a few sources discussing it in correlation with competitive Pokémon. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from the competitive Pokémon topic, which is notable and is an article I'm working on a rewrite for right now, so these sources are not helpful for determining the gameplay's individual notability.

-In short, nothing inherently dictates that Pokémon's gameplay is separately notable from the Pokémon franchise as a whole, and gameplay can easily be summarized at each game's individual article's "Gameplay" sections, as each game has such a varying style of being played that it is impossible to make one article that covers everything without falling afoul of VGSCOPE. I've mentioned a viable AtD _target above (Pokémon (video games series)) that could be helpful for preserving page history on the off-chance this article turns out to be notable in the future, but as it stands, this article isn't individually notable and is better off redirected, merged, or what have you. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Standalone gameplay article can be had but only if there is significant coverage of that from sources (beyond just being a gameplay guide), such as the case for Overwatch or Mahic: The Gathering. This has very little sourcing to support it. Masem (t) 21:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to the game series article, per nom. Unnecessary spin out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand nom's rationale that "The article's scope is unclear". The article describes the gameplay of the games described in Pokémon (video game series) as "The main series of role-playing video games (RPGs), referred as the 'core series' by their developers". Separately, I'm not against a merge of the current content of the article, which is largely duplicative of the series and individual game articles. However, from trying to navigate between the various Pokémon game articles, it's currently already frustrating to actually understand the gameplay of any individual game, due to the articles being structured with descriptions of "like previous entries" or "the same as X", plus a "new features" section. I think merging this makes that problem worse, necessitating the reader to read back through the line of individual game articles. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're saying it veers off-topic a lot, which I agree with. For starters, why would you put a "release timeline" in a gameplay article? There's lots of that sort of stuff, the more you look and think about it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that if there's any issues that are caused by this article's removal, I am willing to and will handle the fixing of those issues editorially. I've been working on improving the Pokémon topic area for a while now, so I know what areas and articles this will affect and what will need to be changed. If you have any more specific advice for this problem, let me know and I'll try to implement these into the articles. At worst, also, we can link a hatnote to the relevant subsection (In this case, Pokémon (video game series)#Gameplay) in place of the previous hatnote to the Gameplay of Pokémon article, as this subsection currently covers the bulk of the important information as is. If you have any more suggestions on if anything else should be merged to that section, then feel free to say it here, and if closed as redirect/merge, we can add it there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partial merge, per nom. Gameplay of X" or "Story of X" is essentially the same as "X". Beyond some point, it begins to violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:UNDUE. Once you clean up the violating material, you'd find it redundant with the game article itself, with very little new ground to cover. The main Pokémon (video game series) article is a good place to summarize the essential features across these many games, and is already surplus coverage that isn't covered at the individual game articles. (In addition to the main Pokémon article about the whole multi-media intellectual property.) If Pokelego999's opinion is that this is excessive, then other editors should take that seriously. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the relevant gameplay section of the series article. The only reason to separate what is functionally identical subject matter to the game itself is to cover a topic with significant coverage and/or analysis, rather than to expand on detail to the point of WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:UNDUE. The content and sources seem purely descriptive, and a shorter summary of this could be merged in the game itself. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE, IMO. As said by the nominator, it lacks evidence the gameplay is standalone notable. Wikibooks does accept game guides nowadays, but it's not something typical for Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The current article goes beyond being a reasonable spinout article and is simply a WP:GAMEGUIDE. The main article on the game series already has a very good section on the common gameplay elements of the series at Pokémon (video game series)#Gameplay, and I honestly don't see it being improved by merging anything from here. I would not object for this to Redirect to that section, though, if people think it would be a useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Titre-Montgomery

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

No SIGCOV, I can only find 1 independent, non-sponsored, in-depth, and reliable source. Bearian, just because we're scrutinized by the public doesn't mean we need to keep articles that are not within policy. In fact, we should be making every effort to delete articles out of policy. The book user:Megalibrarygirl added (from my one-in-the-morning skim of Google Books) appears to be fairly trivial, stating facts and that's 'bout it. Jay Cubby 06:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Video games. Jay Cubby 06:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote this article and there's plenty of coverage for GNG. Please look at the full set of sources the article uses. They include:

Changing the Equation: 50+ Women in STEM Published by Abrams 2020
Coverage on NPR: Changing the Game in Video Gaming 2013
Biography on BlackPast: [3] 2018
Women in Gaming 2018 DK Publishing biography
Business Insider from 2015 [4]
Gaming magazine [5] 2024
Biography on Centre for Computing History [6]

As shown above, the subject of the article has been noticed by important people in her field, such as the Computer History museum. The assertion that books made for general consumption are trivial is not an argument for deletion. What is a trivial book to one person is not trivial to others and can still be a good source of reliable information. Non-fiction books by large publishers (Such as Abrams) go through a good amount of copyedit and scrutiny. In addition, books for general consumption show that a person is notable in their field enough to break through to the general public which is why they are included in 2 popular reading anthologies. With all of the coverage from several sources over time, including two books, the article demonstrates WP:GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Megalibrarygirl here. I saw this delete nomination and started looking through the sources. This looks pretty solid to me. An aside that normally wouldn't matter, but warrants a little mention here → Megalibrarygirl is by profession a librarian. — Maile (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighted by CNN. Someone will probably argue with WP:NARTIST. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on the CNN footage. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party royale game

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEO. Could not find nontrivial examples of the term "party royale" being used by reliable sources to describe a distinct genre of game. There's a couple scattered hits here and there of games being described as "party royale", but they're few and far between. Perhaps redirect as a synonym of battle royale game? ~ A412 ^talk! 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new article that consists entirely of original research, just draft-ify? IgelRM (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a newer article has some merit to be draftified. This one appears to have more significant coverage on Fortnite's party royale mode. So, I would be in favor of either the nom's redirect suggestion or draftify. Conyo14 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Agree this is WP:OR where the content precedes the sourcing. There are several games with game modes calling itself Party Royale, but no obvious secondary coverage of the genre as a whole. Draftifying could provide some chance for incubation. As there's no real sourcing provided, a merge/redirect isn't too helpful. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minecraft characters

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

This is a fork of content on the main Minecraft article that doesn't warrant its own article. The bulk of this article is a Fandom-style listing of all of the mobs in Minecraft - the kind of thing that Wikipedia avoids being (unless it has good reason). It's a list of game mechanics that isn't (and can't be) written in an encyclopedic way. This list isn't discussed together in secondary, reliable sources. There are few notable topics here - namely Steve, Creeper, and Herobrine, which already have their own articles. But the rest just lists parts of the game.

Anyway, I argue this article does not warrant a Wikipedia article because it fails the notability of lists. Its content is adequately covered in the main Minecraft article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Entertainment, Popular culture, and Lists. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the nominator says, these mobs are not really distinct "characters" and are more or less gameplay elements with little notability attached to their names. This list isn't really warranted, and is better off removed for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't really a "list of characters" so much as a list of enemies, i.e. gamecrufty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Steve and Alex are already mentioned in the main Minecraft article (with the former also having a full, dedicated article) and Herobrine, while a notable hoax, is technically not actually a character in Minecraft (and also has a separate, dedicated article as well). The remainder of this is not a list of characters, but a listing of enemy mobs in the game that borders on being a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many reasons: GAMEGUIDE, all in-universe, and an indiscriminate list. Definitely not worthy of a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without real world context, this does not feels closer to a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. These don't have significant coverage, and are closer to a list of enemies, as per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everyone as said it mostly a list of enemies with no notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Wilborn

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

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability here. Amigao (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Television, Video games, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all unreliable sources. I like to read gossip as much as the person, but we have never published original material. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wilborn's prominence and recognition is solely as Madonna's dancer, and not enough WP:NOTABILITY by himself. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing is mostly unreliable and one can't be notable by association.Ynsfial (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cossacks (video games series)

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

No clear evidence this is independently notable as a series or passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cossacks: European Wars as an ATD. It's unnecessary that the games be lumped like this, but I think the first game in the series is a fine _target. Conyo14 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Race (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; only notability is its announcement and subsequent cancellation, with sources being mainly on these two details. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some sources. Timur9008 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not convince me it has notability as a standalone article. There seem to be some mentioned links in the previous AfD, but they are permanently dead - oops. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the consensus and sources found in the first AFD. Not sure how hard the above looked but they're easily found, and some cover things beyond the simple announcement and cancellation, like it's poor reception prior to its cancellation. ~~Only the MTV source appears to be dead, but it still existed at one point, and~~ I even found a few new sources, so there's enough present to write an article around.

There's enough to support an article here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability standard is much higher for cancelled games, but there is reliable sourcing as above and in the earlier AfD about the gameplay details, development, and even some early feedback from outlets that they weren't getting good vibes from the game. This deserves to be kept. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sergecross73 did post sources here, but all are passing mentions or non-significant coverage, interviews (WP:PRIMARY) or routine announcements as regurgitated press releases. Really not convinced about the notability of this game at all. If we took this as meeting WP:GNG, then every upcoming/vaporware/cancelled video game ever would be notable and have its own article too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games as an alternative to deletion - The sources are short announcements, not SIGCOV. And one of them is an interview which counts as a primary source. --Mika1h (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree with some of the assessments above. I've found the MTV source, which is neither routine nor short - its a pretty deep dive. MTV is an RS, and its written by Stephen Totillo, an experienced video game journalist. I also disagree that the coverage is simply routine - the Wired coverage talks about leaked footage, and the poor reception it got, which is anything but routine. And the rest - I don't agree with the label "passing mention" when they're articles entirely dedicated to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The MTV article is not "independent of the subject", the writer is recounting an interview and a press release. Regarding the other sources, I guess what constitutes "significant coverage" is subjective but these news announcements satisfy the "directly" part of GNG but not the "in detail" part. They are basically glorified press releases, they are reciting what Sony has told them. The Wired coverage: Yes, it has critical analysis but it's one paragraph, is that 50 words? No way that is "in detail". Again, SIGCOV is subjective but that is setting the bar really low. --Mika1h (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's not quite right, the MTV article is reporting on someone else's interview, and covers other things, like the game's leak on GameTrailers, its poor reception, etc. It's incorrect to try to handwave that away as some sort of interview/press release, its more nuanced than that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games (though there isn't much to be added): Doing some in-depth search, MTV's coverage at [7] is decent, but that's where it all stops. Based on my comment above and seeing Mika1h's proposal, this is where I end up. There is simply not enough significant coverage of the game - cancelled projects can be extensively covered, even lesser known ones like Heist (video game). This just doesn't meet WP:GNG, but an alternative to deletion is always preferred. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Barrels

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There seems to be no significant coverage. The focus of the sources are the Outlast games, not the company itself. Suggesting redirection to Outlast as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. Mika1h (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its claim to fame (Outlast). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is clear coverage in at least two existing sources (edge and gi.biz) about the founding of the company that meet the independence of NCORP. That might be tied to talking about Outlast but that's expected for a developer that has focused on one series since founding. Masem (t) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the edge article currently on the page?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that gi.biz is SIGCOV, but that Edge article (about Assassin's Creed) only has a passing mention to the company. --Mika1h (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was wondering as the Edge article on the page is no where near meeting WP:ORGCRIT. The gi.biz is an industry publication so while it meets ORGCRIT, it is still not enough and not that strong of a reference to meet NCORP standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears their sole product, the Outlast series, would be more notable. Could this be retooled into a series article? IgelRM (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Contents

Video games-related deletions

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

Evernight Games

Pokémon Home

Gameplay of Pokémon

Lisette Titre-Montgomery

Party royale game

List of Minecraft characters

Carlton Wilborn

Cossacks (video games series)

Rat Race (video game)

Red Barrels

Proposed deletions

Redirects