- 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 merge to Dead or Alive Xtreme 3. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero reception. Zero reliable sources as well; thus failing WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Right here. Also, the links about gameplays & staffs are on the official DOAXVV website RexWill01 ( talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please take a look now. I overhauled the article to address both of the concerns you raised. Jotamide ( talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Sources 1,2,3, 10 and 11 are RS per Source Highlighter, most of which are reviews. I think we're ok
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- They do are, but do they really say anything? No. Its just an announcement. Are there reviews on Metacritic? Nope. We are not basing notability over the quantities of reliable sources, but quality GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 17:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Source 2 is the best of the bunch. The Japanese source 10 is ok and I found this which is recognized as a RS
[1] per Project Video Games.
[2]. Also coverage in Silicon Era
[3] and
[4]. I've amended my !vote to a Weak Keep, not a ton of extensive sources, but one good one and bunch of smaller ones, should be enough for GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- All of these sources are trivia, but I understand that is your perspective. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Story in Vice about the game
[5], another story in Vice
[6], ScreenRant
[7]. Mid-level quality sources, but they talk about the game.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Some of these have been added under this section. Jotamide ( talk) 23:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. Why was this split out from
Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 in the first place? Despite what the IP edit summaries removing it from that article and the talk page discussion say, RS describe it as a "version" of Xtreme 3.
[8]
[9] ~
A412
talk! 05:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because these articles are wrong. It's not a "version", it's a separate (live-service) game of its own. I get the impression all the people who want this merged with DOAX3 never tried to play Venus Vacation in the first place. 188.120.118.114 ( talk) 07:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because it isn't a "version" of Xtreme 3. Anyone claiming so is outright false. 24.230.161.142 ( talk) 17:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please reevaluate your vote? Ever since the deletion nomination I have substantially improved the article to illustrate that after 6+ years of service, Venus Vacation has evolved into separate game with its own story detached from Xtreme 3. Jotamide ( talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge - Vice articles are fairly substantial and the story about the DVD was reported by several publications (eg
PCGamesN) but I think it's not quite enough to pass GNG. Merge to
Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 seems appropriate since DualShockers calls the game a spin-off of Xtreme 3 (
[10],
[11],
[12]), Vice called Venus Vacation renamed Xtreme 3 (
[13]), and Screenrant & The Gamer called it a PC version of Xtreme 3" (
[14],
[15]). --
Mika1h (
talk) 15:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Xtreme series itself is a spinoff. Should it be merged as well? Those other articles are wrong and based on bad information prior to launch. 24.230.161.142 ( talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- While Venus Vacation was originally promoted as a PC port of Xtreme 3, development for the most recent version of that game (DOAX3 Scarlet) ceased in 2020 while DOAXVV is still in active development and by 2024 has diverged quite substantially from Xtreme 3. Several of the articles you linked seem to propagate outdated information from release. Jotamide ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I have no idea why I was informed on my talk page as if I'm the person that made this article (it seems Niemti did?) but um...yeah agree with the above consensus.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk) 21:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please reevaluate your vote? Ever since the deletion nomination I have substantially improved the article to illustrate that after 6+ years of service, Venus Vacation has evolved into separate game with its own story detached from Xtreme 3. Jotamide ( talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - While the first version of this article was poorly-sourced, it can be expanded with info from the eswiki article plus news articles and interviews specific to this game. Some of them can now be found as refideas in the game's talk page. The fact that so many people stated incorrectly in this discussion that this game is just a port of Xtreme 3 (it is not) means that a split article is necessary to clarify this widely-spread misconception. Jotamide ( talk) 21:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sources at the talk oage were trivia. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I do believe that many users here that are just agreeing with the merge suggestion honestly don't know much about this game (if at all). Or simply blindly believe inaccurate articles that have been full of misinformation for years. If you do think that a literal gacha (which means completely different way of acquiring continuously updated swimsuits/characters) doesn't warrant a separate page along with additions/differences in gameplay, then there's even less of a reason to have a separate page for Dead or Alive Paradise which is just a port of DOAX2. 188.120.118.114 ( talk) 21:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and AfD is not based on a vote. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I looked at some of the new sources, and the sense I get is that RS have actually written a decent amount about this game, but not a review, which is frustrating. This is reflected by the current article structure, which stitches together a lot of small articles about elements of the game, without anything overviewing the game. To sum up, you could make a GNG argument, and I think I would keep if not part of a series, but the article doesn't really work as an article when cobbled together in this way, so still merge. ~ A412 talk! 17:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Having played both games, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that these two games, while similar, are entirely different entities. Those voting to merge clearly have little to no understanding of the game, its gameplay or the history behind the game's creation.
-
2600:8804:8780:125E:2373:F536:2585:606D (
talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before, this afd is not a vote. And, this argument is
gibberish. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 23:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC) - I'll write an actual response to the this comment. (@ Greenish Pickle!, I think you need to consider the counterarguments in good faith rather than labeling arguments as "from socks" or "gibberish". They're well-formed arguments, even if we both disagree with them.)
- Unlike other reference works, including some other wikis, English Wikipedia doesn't have any sort of granularity policy, in that even though two topics are technically different, that doesn't mean they are necessarily discussed in two different articles. Instead, the relevant guidelines are WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGEREASON, and the relevant questions are if there is sufficient sourcing to write detailed articles about both topics, and if the reader would be better served by explaining the shared context necessary to understand both topics in a single article. In this case, I think the answers are "no, the sourcing is too piecemeal to write a good article about DOAXVV", and "yes, they have the same context and origin". ~ A412 talk! 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- ‘’’Keep’’’ [I second this, entirely different games] 2600:1700:358A:8050:EC1E:8308:B524:9A9 ( talk) 03:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before, this afd is not a vote. And, this argument is
:::I own them apology, but these IPs looks sus with their single edit and it was this afd.
GreenishPickle! (
🔔) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Greenish Pickle!, please do not BLUDGEON this discussion by responding dismissively to every editor whose opinion you disagree with. Besides it being rude, it is not an effective method of persuading people to your own point of view. What helps with that is presenting a strong argument, not calling other editors' comments "gibberish". Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I own them an apology for being way too far. The thing is, look at these IPs contribution'; their first edit literally this afd and they were canvassed . GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Greenish Pickle!, please do not BLUDGEON this discussion by responding dismissively to every editor whose opinion you disagree with. Besides it being rude, it is not an effective method of persuading people to your own point of view. What helps with that is presenting a strong argument, not calling other editors' comments "gibberish". Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Some off-wiki discussion encouraging people to !vote keep is on
reddit.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 02:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I knew this was a thing; and it felt like the OP closely resembles someone here (I wouldn't mention his name). Similarly what happen to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King K. Rool (2nd nomination). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- There usually is offline discussion of the votes here, reddit or elsewhere. We can't do much about it, but rely on the quality of the discussion here. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge Fails WP:GNG with insufficient coverage in reliable sources. (Yes, I have seen the ones already posted, so don't @ me about them.) The most major articles about the topic are talking about one single feature while ignoring the rest of the game, and fail the broadness criterion. I think Pickle was correct in this instance, even though the initial rationale was not true, but arguments to the person only hurt, not help your case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 17:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. I'm just not seeing significant coverage in reliable, secondary/independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. What's there tends to cover a single aspect of the game. I'll also mention that, while it's mildly annoying to see the off-wiki canvassing/brigading, what's worse is seeing established editors stuff the article with unreliable sources and ostensibly "secondary" sources obviously based on press releases or primary content. Not only does it bloat the article with WP:CHURNALISM but it wastes the time of every editor who needs to wade through it. If the article is somehow kept, it should also be restored to an earlier, cruft-less version. Woodroar ( talk) 14:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I feel that this article says a lot and yet nothing at the same time. The gameplay section is almost completely unsourced and the reception is baron to say it nicely. And judging by the sources, there is very little personal input in the coverage. Captain Galaxy 15:49, 11 April 2024 (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.
- 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 merge to Dead or Alive Xtreme 3. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero reception. Zero reliable sources as well; thus failing WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Right here. Also, the links about gameplays & staffs are on the official DOAXVV website RexWill01 ( talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please take a look now. I overhauled the article to address both of the concerns you raised. Jotamide ( talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Sources 1,2,3, 10 and 11 are RS per Source Highlighter, most of which are reviews. I think we're ok
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- They do are, but do they really say anything? No. Its just an announcement. Are there reviews on Metacritic? Nope. We are not basing notability over the quantities of reliable sources, but quality GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 17:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Source 2 is the best of the bunch. The Japanese source 10 is ok and I found this which is recognized as a RS
[1] per Project Video Games.
[2]. Also coverage in Silicon Era
[3] and
[4]. I've amended my !vote to a Weak Keep, not a ton of extensive sources, but one good one and bunch of smaller ones, should be enough for GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- All of these sources are trivia, but I understand that is your perspective. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Story in Vice about the game
[5], another story in Vice
[6], ScreenRant
[7]. Mid-level quality sources, but they talk about the game.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Some of these have been added under this section. Jotamide ( talk) 23:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. Why was this split out from
Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 in the first place? Despite what the IP edit summaries removing it from that article and the talk page discussion say, RS describe it as a "version" of Xtreme 3.
[8]
[9] ~
A412
talk! 05:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because these articles are wrong. It's not a "version", it's a separate (live-service) game of its own. I get the impression all the people who want this merged with DOAX3 never tried to play Venus Vacation in the first place. 188.120.118.114 ( talk) 07:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because it isn't a "version" of Xtreme 3. Anyone claiming so is outright false. 24.230.161.142 ( talk) 17:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please reevaluate your vote? Ever since the deletion nomination I have substantially improved the article to illustrate that after 6+ years of service, Venus Vacation has evolved into separate game with its own story detached from Xtreme 3. Jotamide ( talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge - Vice articles are fairly substantial and the story about the DVD was reported by several publications (eg
PCGamesN) but I think it's not quite enough to pass GNG. Merge to
Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 seems appropriate since DualShockers calls the game a spin-off of Xtreme 3 (
[10],
[11],
[12]), Vice called Venus Vacation renamed Xtreme 3 (
[13]), and Screenrant & The Gamer called it a PC version of Xtreme 3" (
[14],
[15]). --
Mika1h (
talk) 15:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Xtreme series itself is a spinoff. Should it be merged as well? Those other articles are wrong and based on bad information prior to launch. 24.230.161.142 ( talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- While Venus Vacation was originally promoted as a PC port of Xtreme 3, development for the most recent version of that game (DOAX3 Scarlet) ceased in 2020 while DOAXVV is still in active development and by 2024 has diverged quite substantially from Xtreme 3. Several of the articles you linked seem to propagate outdated information from release. Jotamide ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I have no idea why I was informed on my talk page as if I'm the person that made this article (it seems Niemti did?) but um...yeah agree with the above consensus.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk) 21:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please reevaluate your vote? Ever since the deletion nomination I have substantially improved the article to illustrate that after 6+ years of service, Venus Vacation has evolved into separate game with its own story detached from Xtreme 3. Jotamide ( talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - While the first version of this article was poorly-sourced, it can be expanded with info from the eswiki article plus news articles and interviews specific to this game. Some of them can now be found as refideas in the game's talk page. The fact that so many people stated incorrectly in this discussion that this game is just a port of Xtreme 3 (it is not) means that a split article is necessary to clarify this widely-spread misconception. Jotamide ( talk) 21:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sources at the talk oage were trivia. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I do believe that many users here that are just agreeing with the merge suggestion honestly don't know much about this game (if at all). Or simply blindly believe inaccurate articles that have been full of misinformation for years. If you do think that a literal gacha (which means completely different way of acquiring continuously updated swimsuits/characters) doesn't warrant a separate page along with additions/differences in gameplay, then there's even less of a reason to have a separate page for Dead or Alive Paradise which is just a port of DOAX2. 188.120.118.114 ( talk) 21:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and AfD is not based on a vote. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I looked at some of the new sources, and the sense I get is that RS have actually written a decent amount about this game, but not a review, which is frustrating. This is reflected by the current article structure, which stitches together a lot of small articles about elements of the game, without anything overviewing the game. To sum up, you could make a GNG argument, and I think I would keep if not part of a series, but the article doesn't really work as an article when cobbled together in this way, so still merge. ~ A412 talk! 17:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Having played both games, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that these two games, while similar, are entirely different entities. Those voting to merge clearly have little to no understanding of the game, its gameplay or the history behind the game's creation.
-
2600:8804:8780:125E:2373:F536:2585:606D (
talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before, this afd is not a vote. And, this argument is
gibberish. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 23:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC) - I'll write an actual response to the this comment. (@ Greenish Pickle!, I think you need to consider the counterarguments in good faith rather than labeling arguments as "from socks" or "gibberish". They're well-formed arguments, even if we both disagree with them.)
- Unlike other reference works, including some other wikis, English Wikipedia doesn't have any sort of granularity policy, in that even though two topics are technically different, that doesn't mean they are necessarily discussed in two different articles. Instead, the relevant guidelines are WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGEREASON, and the relevant questions are if there is sufficient sourcing to write detailed articles about both topics, and if the reader would be better served by explaining the shared context necessary to understand both topics in a single article. In this case, I think the answers are "no, the sourcing is too piecemeal to write a good article about DOAXVV", and "yes, they have the same context and origin". ~ A412 talk! 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- ‘’’Keep’’’ [I second this, entirely different games] 2600:1700:358A:8050:EC1E:8308:B524:9A9 ( talk) 03:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before, this afd is not a vote. And, this argument is
:::I own them apology, but these IPs looks sus with their single edit and it was this afd.
GreenishPickle! (
🔔) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Greenish Pickle!, please do not BLUDGEON this discussion by responding dismissively to every editor whose opinion you disagree with. Besides it being rude, it is not an effective method of persuading people to your own point of view. What helps with that is presenting a strong argument, not calling other editors' comments "gibberish". Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I own them an apology for being way too far. The thing is, look at these IPs contribution'; their first edit literally this afd and they were canvassed . GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Greenish Pickle!, please do not BLUDGEON this discussion by responding dismissively to every editor whose opinion you disagree with. Besides it being rude, it is not an effective method of persuading people to your own point of view. What helps with that is presenting a strong argument, not calling other editors' comments "gibberish". Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Some off-wiki discussion encouraging people to !vote keep is on
reddit.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 02:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I knew this was a thing; and it felt like the OP closely resembles someone here (I wouldn't mention his name). Similarly what happen to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King K. Rool (2nd nomination). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- There usually is offline discussion of the votes here, reddit or elsewhere. We can't do much about it, but rely on the quality of the discussion here. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge Fails WP:GNG with insufficient coverage in reliable sources. (Yes, I have seen the ones already posted, so don't @ me about them.) The most major articles about the topic are talking about one single feature while ignoring the rest of the game, and fail the broadness criterion. I think Pickle was correct in this instance, even though the initial rationale was not true, but arguments to the person only hurt, not help your case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 17:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. I'm just not seeing significant coverage in reliable, secondary/independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. What's there tends to cover a single aspect of the game. I'll also mention that, while it's mildly annoying to see the off-wiki canvassing/brigading, what's worse is seeing established editors stuff the article with unreliable sources and ostensibly "secondary" sources obviously based on press releases or primary content. Not only does it bloat the article with WP:CHURNALISM but it wastes the time of every editor who needs to wade through it. If the article is somehow kept, it should also be restored to an earlier, cruft-less version. Woodroar ( talk) 14:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I feel that this article says a lot and yet nothing at the same time. The gameplay section is almost completely unsourced and the reception is baron to say it nicely. And judging by the sources, there is very little personal input in the coverage. Captain Galaxy 15:49, 11 April 2024 (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.