This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Video games. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few
scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Video games.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:
We do not have articles for video game "seasons" unless there is a very clear reason why it warrants a separate article (aka
meeting notability), which this does not. Also falls into
WP:GAMEGUIDE and
WP:GAMECRUFT territory. λNegativeMP1 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No reason that this article with its questionable sources and zero claim to enough notability to warrant a separate article should be one.
Flemmish Nietzsche (
talk) 00:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This article is not well sourced and could very well be fit into the
parent article rather than be split off. And as Negative mentioned, this is a very GAMECRUFT filled article.
CaptainGalaxy 00:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
Fortnite: Myths and Mortals and redirect to
Fortnite Battle Royale#Chapter 5 It's plausible someone would be looking for the season episode title and details, but they aren't going to type in every bit of the current title. The main article covers it much more appropriate than this text that belongs on a more appropriate Fandom. Nate•(
chatter) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The disambiguation page fails
WP:DAB as it only lists one topic and not many topics, thus not making it a valid DAB. It's also a good idea to delete the
dab pages that redirect to that page as well.
kpgamingz (
rant me) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There can be a series page for related topics while also having a DAB page for identically named topics, those are different things.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Kpgamingz says that "dab articles are for unrelated topics", but I see no evidence of that in the
WP:DAB article. Did I miss it? If not, I think Kpgamingz is misinterpreting WP:DAB: each of the things listed is a "topic" as referred to in WP:DAB. This disambiguation page seems extremely helpful. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 21:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I think the nominator doesn't understand WP:DAB (or I'm being stupid), but it looks like it disambiguates between a bunch of pages. In particular:
"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead"
"The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses."
Me Da Wikipedian (
talk) 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteStick Soldiers 2 has marginal interest from sources with
WP:NONENG (
[1][2]) or a dubious CNET write-up (
[3]) but I think it's comfortable to delete here: those three sources would be shaky ground to establish independent notability for that game, and the other games and the series as a whole seem not to have enough coverage to merit an article.
VRXCES (
talk) 08:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Does not meet
WP:NGAME. Not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not need its own article.
Clearfrienda💬 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:GNG, articles by reliable sources
Destructoid (by staff editor see:
[4]),
Hardcore Gaming 101, plus Japanese language version of the article lists 2 print reviews:
[5] -
Mika1h (
talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's also this Italian magazine that seems to have reviewed the game:
[6] -
Mika1h (
talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And here's a short review in a Spanish magazine:
[7] -
Mika1h (
talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as above, there are several secondary sources that refer to the game.
Keep - There are sources talking about the game out there, which pretty much establish that it's a notable game. It's just that the article is poorly structured but can be improved.
Roberth Martinez (
talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. The only source that meets GNG criteria is the article from The Japan Times. Normally, I would probably draftify, but the article has already been accepted previously at AfC by
User:14 novembre. Most of what I found online was not independent of the subject.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately non-notable as per
WP:GNG on the basis of the lack of reliable sourcing and in-depth reviews. Know Your Meme and WikiHow are pretty cut and dry
WP:USERG. A
WP:BEFORE finds some brief analysis of a gameplay mechanic in the game in Game Rant
[8] and some even briefer listicle-type assessments of the game in TheGamer
[9] and Sportskeeda
[10]. But I think this is well below the level of coverage needed as a whole if using the
WP:THREE method. There isn't good guidance on notability for a series, but if there was one or two reviews out there for the other games, I would argue that a series such as this is not notable where (1) there's no in-depth coverage of the series as a whole body of work; and (2) none of the individual works in the series seem they would be independently notable. At any rate, open to views.
VRXCES (
talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not promotion and requires notability for an article to be made.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Simply not notable per WP:GNG like you said.
TheWikiToby (
talk) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Out of respect for the article creator, just flagging that @
Bennett1203: has added more sources to the article to
"suppress deletion", although these seem to be the Steam and IMDb pages and the sources listed above. Of course they're definitely welcome to participate in the discussion if desired!
Hello. I am well aware of this yet I didn’t think to reply! At this point, this article was something I did because I wanted to help Wikipedia, however you guys can decide the deletion.
Bennett1203 (
talk) 18:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately the article currently falls well short of
WP:GNG and
WP:CORP. The article's three cited sources are either bulletin-style without commentary or trivial; regardless generally not
WP:SIGCOV about the background of the company. A
WP:BEFORE finds a lot of Sago products online but only a Verge
product review and a
staff interview from Kidscreen (?) seem to enter the standard of coverage needed. I imagine there may be more out there though. There's also a naming issue: if Sago Mini is the current name of the company, the article should not be called Sago Sago unless there is enormous coverage on the former state which is not the case. An obvious
WP:ATD is to
WP:MERGE what little there is to
Toca Boca or
Spin Master. Welcome any thoughts, particularly from users that are more experienced with notability pertaining to companies in this sector.
VRXCES (
talk) 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And even renaming it to Sago Mini
Tomasz22334 (
talk) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand it can be a bit disappointing if there is consensus that the article is not notable.
WP:GNG is generally a threshold for determining what articles should be included on Wikipedia because there is sufficient coverage to show that the subject merits an article. On keeping an article that doesn't quite meet that standard but could in the future, there's always the ability to develop an article in
WP:DRAFT and we can definitely
WP:DRAFTIFY the article as an option that doesn't involve deleting anything you've done.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Please expand it, add more references and rename and move it to Sago Mini to keep it forever as a result.
Tomasz22334 (
talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's something that's up to you or an interested editor to do. The AFD discussion here is about whether the subject itself has enough coverage to merit an article in the first place. Although hopefully this discussion can settle whether there's reliable coverage out there.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As far as I can tell, most of the information on it comes from either sellers of its products, or distributers of the TV show "Sago Mini Friends". Although it is a Spin Master brand, I don't know if there's enough verifiable information on it to justify a merge (especially since the Spin Master page already has most of the information that I could find).
Ships &
Space(
Edits) 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Please provide
WP:THREE sources that talk about Sago Sago in detail. Proving notability is the only way you can help this article stay.
Merko (
talk) 19:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No sources at all, lacks notability, extreme amounts of fluff - looks very much like just a self-promo page.
Hornpipe2 (
talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(comment) having some doubts over whether the IPv6 editor, and also the user "rickory", have a conflict of interest going on with this
Hornpipe2 (
talk) 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete of the sources that aren't IMDB only one actually mentions the subject in passing. Others don't mention the subject at all, leaving all of the biographical parts of the article unverified. Agree lacks notability.
Orange sticker (
talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability.
Esw01407 (
talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of
WP:GNG-worthy
reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met.
WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of
Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in
Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes.
Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to
WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over.
DreamFocus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of
Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of
Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor.
User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here
WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO.
BusterD (
talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over
WP:NACTOR is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasisWP:Notability (people) (which includes
WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even
WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable.
Schazjmd(talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request
WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more
WP:OR instead. If
WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes,
User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not original research.
WP:OR, under primary, states:
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about.
DreamFocus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a
WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? --
Ssilvers (
talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate•(
chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are
WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of
WP:SIGCOV and do not establish
WP:GNG. Without doing a
WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a
WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on
WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamershere. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of
WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found.
VRXCES (
talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1
here, 2
here).
Waxworker (
talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me.
VRXCES (
talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about
eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: How do the delete !voters feel about a redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 02:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Googling the Japanese name, エッチなバニーさんは嫌い, within archive.org netted at least two cases of apparent Japanese nontrivial print coverage – Game Criticism Vol. 39 (July 2001) p. 107 and BugBug 2001-05 p. 56.--
LaukkuTheGreit (
Talk•
Contribs) 08:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Favor redirect to ZyX over delete, but weak keep either way, per
WP:ATD-M and
WP:ATD-R. I looked at LaukkuTheGreit's sources and both of them definitely look like
WP:SIGCOV. -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK) 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Absolute Games review & the 2 Japanese sources are just enough to meet GNG. -
Mika1h (
talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep assuming the Japanese sources offer significant coverage. If not kept should be redirected to
ZyX (brand) as an ATD.
Eluchil404 (
talk) 03:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with
Atlus.
IgelRM (
talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki:
~/talk/$ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability.
IgelRM (
talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage.
IgelRM (
talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepNeutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --
ProtoDrake (
talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page.
IgelRM (
talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name.
IgelRM (
talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Can the keep editors give
WP:THREE for those of us who don't want to slog through 77 (!) references? --
asilvering (
talk) 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Tagging @
Thetechie:@
Why? I Ask:. I mentioned relevant Game Informer article above, so maybe two?
IgelRM (
talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk
Me Da Wikipedian (
talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Mergeto
Atlus. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is
Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to
two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV.
Woodroar (
talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to
Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to
Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on
List of Atlus games.
IgelRM (
talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This makes sense to me!
Woodroar (
talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Editors are free to merge whatever content they want to other articles but XFDcloser can only handle one Merge target article in closing a discussion. Would that be
Atlus? LizRead!Talk! 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. --
ferret (
talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this?
Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this.
CurlyWi (
talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve.
IgelRM (
talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer.
Swordman97talk to me 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I really really want to change my position, but no one has provided a single source other than Game Informer that shows in-depth independnent sigcov. --
ferret (
talk) 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Video games. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few
scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Video games.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:
We do not have articles for video game "seasons" unless there is a very clear reason why it warrants a separate article (aka
meeting notability), which this does not. Also falls into
WP:GAMEGUIDE and
WP:GAMECRUFT territory. λNegativeMP1 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No reason that this article with its questionable sources and zero claim to enough notability to warrant a separate article should be one.
Flemmish Nietzsche (
talk) 00:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This article is not well sourced and could very well be fit into the
parent article rather than be split off. And as Negative mentioned, this is a very GAMECRUFT filled article.
CaptainGalaxy 00:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
Fortnite: Myths and Mortals and redirect to
Fortnite Battle Royale#Chapter 5 It's plausible someone would be looking for the season episode title and details, but they aren't going to type in every bit of the current title. The main article covers it much more appropriate than this text that belongs on a more appropriate Fandom. Nate•(
chatter) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The disambiguation page fails
WP:DAB as it only lists one topic and not many topics, thus not making it a valid DAB. It's also a good idea to delete the
dab pages that redirect to that page as well.
kpgamingz (
rant me) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There can be a series page for related topics while also having a DAB page for identically named topics, those are different things.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Kpgamingz says that "dab articles are for unrelated topics", but I see no evidence of that in the
WP:DAB article. Did I miss it? If not, I think Kpgamingz is misinterpreting WP:DAB: each of the things listed is a "topic" as referred to in WP:DAB. This disambiguation page seems extremely helpful. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 21:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I think the nominator doesn't understand WP:DAB (or I'm being stupid), but it looks like it disambiguates between a bunch of pages. In particular:
"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead"
"The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses."
Me Da Wikipedian (
talk) 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteStick Soldiers 2 has marginal interest from sources with
WP:NONENG (
[1][2]) or a dubious CNET write-up (
[3]) but I think it's comfortable to delete here: those three sources would be shaky ground to establish independent notability for that game, and the other games and the series as a whole seem not to have enough coverage to merit an article.
VRXCES (
talk) 08:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Does not meet
WP:NGAME. Not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not need its own article.
Clearfrienda💬 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:GNG, articles by reliable sources
Destructoid (by staff editor see:
[4]),
Hardcore Gaming 101, plus Japanese language version of the article lists 2 print reviews:
[5] -
Mika1h (
talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's also this Italian magazine that seems to have reviewed the game:
[6] -
Mika1h (
talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And here's a short review in a Spanish magazine:
[7] -
Mika1h (
talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as above, there are several secondary sources that refer to the game.
Keep - There are sources talking about the game out there, which pretty much establish that it's a notable game. It's just that the article is poorly structured but can be improved.
Roberth Martinez (
talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. The only source that meets GNG criteria is the article from The Japan Times. Normally, I would probably draftify, but the article has already been accepted previously at AfC by
User:14 novembre. Most of what I found online was not independent of the subject.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately non-notable as per
WP:GNG on the basis of the lack of reliable sourcing and in-depth reviews. Know Your Meme and WikiHow are pretty cut and dry
WP:USERG. A
WP:BEFORE finds some brief analysis of a gameplay mechanic in the game in Game Rant
[8] and some even briefer listicle-type assessments of the game in TheGamer
[9] and Sportskeeda
[10]. But I think this is well below the level of coverage needed as a whole if using the
WP:THREE method. There isn't good guidance on notability for a series, but if there was one or two reviews out there for the other games, I would argue that a series such as this is not notable where (1) there's no in-depth coverage of the series as a whole body of work; and (2) none of the individual works in the series seem they would be independently notable. At any rate, open to views.
VRXCES (
talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not promotion and requires notability for an article to be made.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Simply not notable per WP:GNG like you said.
TheWikiToby (
talk) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Out of respect for the article creator, just flagging that @
Bennett1203: has added more sources to the article to
"suppress deletion", although these seem to be the Steam and IMDb pages and the sources listed above. Of course they're definitely welcome to participate in the discussion if desired!
Hello. I am well aware of this yet I didn’t think to reply! At this point, this article was something I did because I wanted to help Wikipedia, however you guys can decide the deletion.
Bennett1203 (
talk) 18:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately the article currently falls well short of
WP:GNG and
WP:CORP. The article's three cited sources are either bulletin-style without commentary or trivial; regardless generally not
WP:SIGCOV about the background of the company. A
WP:BEFORE finds a lot of Sago products online but only a Verge
product review and a
staff interview from Kidscreen (?) seem to enter the standard of coverage needed. I imagine there may be more out there though. There's also a naming issue: if Sago Mini is the current name of the company, the article should not be called Sago Sago unless there is enormous coverage on the former state which is not the case. An obvious
WP:ATD is to
WP:MERGE what little there is to
Toca Boca or
Spin Master. Welcome any thoughts, particularly from users that are more experienced with notability pertaining to companies in this sector.
VRXCES (
talk) 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And even renaming it to Sago Mini
Tomasz22334 (
talk) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand it can be a bit disappointing if there is consensus that the article is not notable.
WP:GNG is generally a threshold for determining what articles should be included on Wikipedia because there is sufficient coverage to show that the subject merits an article. On keeping an article that doesn't quite meet that standard but could in the future, there's always the ability to develop an article in
WP:DRAFT and we can definitely
WP:DRAFTIFY the article as an option that doesn't involve deleting anything you've done.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Please expand it, add more references and rename and move it to Sago Mini to keep it forever as a result.
Tomasz22334 (
talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's something that's up to you or an interested editor to do. The AFD discussion here is about whether the subject itself has enough coverage to merit an article in the first place. Although hopefully this discussion can settle whether there's reliable coverage out there.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As far as I can tell, most of the information on it comes from either sellers of its products, or distributers of the TV show "Sago Mini Friends". Although it is a Spin Master brand, I don't know if there's enough verifiable information on it to justify a merge (especially since the Spin Master page already has most of the information that I could find).
Ships &
Space(
Edits) 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Please provide
WP:THREE sources that talk about Sago Sago in detail. Proving notability is the only way you can help this article stay.
Merko (
talk) 19:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No sources at all, lacks notability, extreme amounts of fluff - looks very much like just a self-promo page.
Hornpipe2 (
talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(comment) having some doubts over whether the IPv6 editor, and also the user "rickory", have a conflict of interest going on with this
Hornpipe2 (
talk) 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete of the sources that aren't IMDB only one actually mentions the subject in passing. Others don't mention the subject at all, leaving all of the biographical parts of the article unverified. Agree lacks notability.
Orange sticker (
talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability.
Esw01407 (
talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of
WP:GNG-worthy
reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met.
WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of
Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in
Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes.
Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to
WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over.
DreamFocus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of
Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of
Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor.
User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here
WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO.
BusterD (
talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over
WP:NACTOR is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasisWP:Notability (people) (which includes
WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even
WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable.
Schazjmd(talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request
WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more
WP:OR instead. If
WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes,
User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not original research.
WP:OR, under primary, states:
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about.
DreamFocus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a
WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? --
Ssilvers (
talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate•(
chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are
WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of
WP:SIGCOV and do not establish
WP:GNG. Without doing a
WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a
WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on
WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamershere. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of
WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found.
VRXCES (
talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1
here, 2
here).
Waxworker (
talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me.
VRXCES (
talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about
eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: How do the delete !voters feel about a redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 02:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Googling the Japanese name, エッチなバニーさんは嫌い, within archive.org netted at least two cases of apparent Japanese nontrivial print coverage – Game Criticism Vol. 39 (July 2001) p. 107 and BugBug 2001-05 p. 56.--
LaukkuTheGreit (
Talk•
Contribs) 08:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Favor redirect to ZyX over delete, but weak keep either way, per
WP:ATD-M and
WP:ATD-R. I looked at LaukkuTheGreit's sources and both of them definitely look like
WP:SIGCOV. -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK) 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Absolute Games review & the 2 Japanese sources are just enough to meet GNG. -
Mika1h (
talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep assuming the Japanese sources offer significant coverage. If not kept should be redirected to
ZyX (brand) as an ATD.
Eluchil404 (
talk) 03:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with
Atlus.
IgelRM (
talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki:
~/talk/$ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability.
IgelRM (
talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage.
IgelRM (
talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepNeutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --
ProtoDrake (
talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page.
IgelRM (
talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name.
IgelRM (
talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Can the keep editors give
WP:THREE for those of us who don't want to slog through 77 (!) references? --
asilvering (
talk) 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Tagging @
Thetechie:@
Why? I Ask:. I mentioned relevant Game Informer article above, so maybe two?
IgelRM (
talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk
Me Da Wikipedian (
talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Mergeto
Atlus. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is
Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to
two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV.
Woodroar (
talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to
Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to
Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on
List of Atlus games.
IgelRM (
talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This makes sense to me!
Woodroar (
talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Editors are free to merge whatever content they want to other articles but XFDcloser can only handle one Merge target article in closing a discussion. Would that be
Atlus? LizRead!Talk! 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. --
ferret (
talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this?
Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this.
CurlyWi (
talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve.
IgelRM (
talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer.
Swordman97talk to me 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I really really want to change my position, but no one has provided a single source other than Game Informer that shows in-depth independnent sigcov. --
ferret (
talk) 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply