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

Gilman Louie

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

non-notable person who created an article about themselves. 1keyhole (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has been expanded since creation, and Gilmanl's current authorship is around 3%, so I'm not too concerned there. Notability is the bigger concern. The coverage in The Christian Science Monitor is significant, reliable (see WP:CSMONITOR), secondary, and independent. Finding a second source is harder. Most other sources the article cites are not independent, unless the government [1] counts as independent. A Vox article [2] I found may have significant enough coverage, or it may not. More than one sentence addresses Louie directly. Regardless, being on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board might mean WP:NPOL applies. I'm at a weak keep for now. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 07:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Francis

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Purple francis. Article is about a joke character, which was BLARed in 2021 because of a lack of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with the stated blar reasoning. seemed more like an editor not liking it, despite at least two others having agreed before that it did meet the gng

that aside, keep. for better or worse (definitely worse), purple francis does have those reliable sources on him. still no prejudice against draftifying or userifying, since its prose might be a little undercooked for mainspace, but i don't think it's anything that can't be done in around an hour and 9 minutes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Left 4 Dead (franchise). This is a very small Stub primarily filled with a lot of information about Purple Francis's in-universe information. There is very little coverage showing Purple Francis's actual impact and popularity that can't be just be summarized in one sentence. It warrants a mention, but it's not necessary for this to have a separate article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also fair, to be honest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the franchise article. Coverage is not SUSTAINED and the incident could be covered with a sentence or two in the franchise article, if that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. The coverage is trivial, and doesn't have significant reception or analysis. I'd also support a redirect, but merge is a good compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wily

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

This has been redirected because it relies heavily on primary sources and the nominator's WP:BEFORE found nothing but game reviews, but i am here to give this article a second chance, Wily is a pretty popular character, it has been a year and a half since it was redirected, so doing a WP:BEFORE should find some reliable sources as a keep, but if not, we can restore the merge and redirect. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect and procedural close per WP:G4. This is the exact same article we looked at last time (zero alterations) and this is an abuse of process. It’s not AFD’s job to source hunt in this context, and the nominator didn’t even bother to suggest what these new sources are in asking for us to look at this again. If you want to work on it, do so in WP:USERSPACE by copy pasting the article into your WP:SANDBOX. When you have located new sources and then improved the article to a state where you think it meets WP:GNG undo the the redirect and make it live per WP:BOLD. If people disagree it may end back here at WP:AFD. At which point we will either confirm your opinion or reinstate the redirect. Don’t ask us to relook at anything that hasn’t changed since the last time we looked at it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could someone please link the discussion leading to this becoming a redirect, because I cannot see it? Daranios (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge it was BLAR'd after some scattered discussion, per reasons described in the edit summary and in this AfD's nom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose procedural close, WP:G4 doesn't apply here, there hasn't been a previous AfD or other discussion, just someone BLARring the page. --Mika1h (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. Rather, after the article was boldly redirected, any editor with an opposing opinion is justified to restore the article and start a more thorough discussion according to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That said though, it would have been the burden of the nominator to conduct a WP:BEFORE search according to the deletion process, which should not be pushed onto the participants of the discussion. It's an unusual case here, because the nominator is also the one who restored the article first, but still. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise an analysis of the article's sourcing as well as of any potential sourcing, given that we're in this venue now, and especially so since the nom does not seem to have done a BEFORE. I'll take a look later myself and see if I find anything, but the current Reception is very much a lot of random listicle rankings and such that don't really say much, so I doubt most of it can really be considered Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My BEFORE wasn't very fruitful. I turned up two Destructoid sources- [3] This one is a merchandise announcement that briefly covers how Wily's groveling became iconic, but that's pretty minor and can be summed up in a sentence. [4] This one happens to cover Wily's actions, but after reading it, it becomes apparent it's just a very dramatically worded summary of Wily's actions throughout the Mega Man series.

A look through Books yielded nothing bar trivial mentions and official material, and Scholar yielded the same. [5][6] These two mention Wily, but I can't access them, so I have no idea to what degree their coverage of him is. If both of these turn out to have nothing, then there's nothing really else for this guy at all. If someone who has access can assess these sources, I'd appreciate it greatly. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the former accessible through this link? I've seen there very brief characterization as a "selfish scientist" with "aspirations of world domination", and a few sentences of plot summary there. Daranios (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Looks like they're one and the same, good find. It looks primarily to be about Mega Man the character and series, and less so Wily, who only gets mentioned a few times with very little substance. I doubt it'd be enough to help Wily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimitsu

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

The reception section is a mess of listicles and "anything not nailed down" types of articles. While there can be some degree of commentary gleamed for Yoshimitsu, it's brief and often repetitive. Even checking sources I've used in the past for Soulcalibur characters doesn't offer much at all. There's just no meat on this bone that I can find. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly, I'm leaning forward to being neutral in this situation. I feel like there's a chance the character might be notable since they have been involved in two fighting game franchises and have almost appeared in every main game of each franchise and gone through multiple distinct designs. Otherwise, the best source I could find about Yoshimitsu is [7]. These sources might also help [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Aside from that, this character has three incarnations throughout the Tekken and Soulcalibur franchises, so if the character information is going to be merged, then the Tekken version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Tekken series, and the Soulcalibur version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Soulcalibur series. Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Den of Geek one is the strongest source coupled with Jasper's commentary on the Tekken character ranking list. The main problem though is that the Game Rant and CGMag refs are echoes of some of the commentary from that one on the designs and could be summed up as "his appearance changes frequently", PushSquare is basically death battle commentary in this case, and The Gamer and 3DPrint refs are both about fan works (I checked to see if the designer on the latter had some notability that could help but no dice). I feel there may not be enough actually said for SIGCOV when the sources are lined up is my concern.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just not notable. The WP:GNG is clearly failed here. If this page is redirected, it should be moved and the DAB made primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Internet Backgammon Server

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The linked book does not contain significant coverage of FIBS. The article was kept in a 2008 discussion, but the arguments presented there wouldn't hold up today. toweli (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of trivial mentions in books etc. but nothing substantial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. Trivial mentions on Newspapers.com as well. Timur9008 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emote

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

The article as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Although the current state of the article isn't great, I think we have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I found academic sources that discuss the use of emotes on Twitch^[1]^[2] and there are other online sources that specifically discuss emotes (as distinct from emojis),^[3]^[4] so I don't think redirecting would be appropriate. There appears to be enough sourcing to maintain a separate article, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, there is some overlap between how emotes and emojis are used (one paper describes emotes as "platform-specific emojis"),^[5] but I still think there is enough discussion of emotes as a distinct term to warrant a stand-alone article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can any of those be used to write a cohesive article on emotes in general, as opposed to an example farm?

Even if expanded, I foresee it becoming like:

"In one example, Twitch utilizes emotes. In another, Youtube uses emotes. In yet another, emotes are used in MMOs". And so on. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, "emotes" is used in a sense that is synonymous with emoji rather than its own entity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that emotes and emojis are sometimes used synonymously, but in some contexts they are clearly distinct. Video game emotes (i.e., character animations that players can trigger) is a clearly distinct usage for instance. One source I found discusses a copyright lawsuit against Epic Games regarding the source of their emote animations;^[6] another source discusses the differences in how players perceive emotes vs. actual facial expressions;^[7] and there were more sources I saw on Google Scholar that I'm too lazy to cite at the moment. To your point, it will definitely be difficult to create a cohesive article because of these diverging uses of the term. However, I'm seeing quite a few academic sources that discuss the use of emotes in video games and live chats, so I'm still inclined to keep an article in some form. I'm open to discussion on what the scope of the article should be, how to structure it, etc. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the article could be rewritten as Emote (video games). However, I don't think it would be the primary topic regardless, so I believe that my deletion proposal of this particular article in its current form still stands. In the current article there is nothing that merits keeping; it requires a full rewrite 100%. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it requires a rewrite doesn't mean it should be deleted. AfD is not cleanup. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Twitch emotes; depending on the severity of the coverage, would Twitch emotes not be a separate topic from emotes? Sort of similar to how Emoji has various other notable topics, like Eggplant emoji and Face with Tears of Joy emoji. I'm not sure it'd provide notability to the parent if it is an inherently separate, albeit notable topic.
I do second Zx in that emotes seem to be a very wide-reaching topic, and the sourcing for them as a whole doesn't seem to be there like what Emojis seem to have. There may be several notable subtopics, but attempting to cover all these subtopics as one topic would be messy and potentially problematic. I won't vote yet until more is discussed, but I felt it would be worthwhile to ask about the above and get some clarity on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue seems to be that there are multiple topics this article could focus on. When it comes to emotes on livestreaming platforms, the sources seem to exclusively focus on Twitch emotes. I notice that Twitch emote already redirects to Twitch (service)#Emotes. Maybe it would make sense to rework this article to focus on emotes in video games and include a hatnote to Twitch (service)#Emotes where the platform-specific emotes are already covered? Like you, I'd like to get input from other editors on this, so I've struck my initial !vote pending further discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might make more sense to convert Emote to a disambiguation page. I'll need to dig into the sources a bit more before making a firm claim on what the primary topic is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Bolingbroke Good luck! Let me know how that goes. I'm partial to both of your responses, and I feel both could be feasible, but I'll need to see what sourcing is like before I make any significant judgement calls. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.
^ Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.
^ Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

Stardew Valley Guidebook

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

The only source that might contribute to notability is the Polygon one, which is surprisingly OK. All the others are unreliable or press-release type, which does not help notability, a search found nothing else.

Also, I have never seen an article on a guidebook before, not that that impacts notability. Do we have any others? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Video games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took as examples articles like The Cairo Guidebook, The London Guidebook, and Hero Builder's Guidebook. Ersene (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples. The first one has two pieces of reception so is notable - unsure about the other two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stardew Valley#Legacy, insufficient significant coverage for its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an important review from the CBR site. Ersene (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a listicle so I don't think it's enough. CBR is also Valnet which is unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, listicle + Valnet is not a great combo. Only reinforces the idea that it's not a notable book. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Train simulator (disambiguation)

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

A disambiguation page is supposed to list unrelated topics with the same name. This does neither of those - the topics aren't unrelated (all being of the same class of video game) and aren't all called Train Simulator unadorned either. What this really is is a mistitled list of train simulators, which is wholly redundant to the longer list at Train simulator * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disambiguations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Train Simulator per WP:DIFFCAPS but keep; Microsoft Train Simulator appears to be called simply Train Simulator at times, so there are at least two potential primary topics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I removed entries not titled "Train Simulator", it still leaves 3 entries. Microsoft Train Simulator is called in reviews just "Train Simulator", see this review for example: [13]. --Mika1h (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This still has the same problem. It's still a list of train simulators in disquise, and wholly redundant to the broad concept which already lists two of those games and could easily be modified to include the third. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this now makes sense due to the changes made by Mika1h. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that it's been cleaned up, it's just a normal disambiguation page for things called "train simulator". Yes, these are all video games. Yes, you could probably find them all on a list of train simulator video games. That is not a valid reason for deleting a dab page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid dab page for things called "Train Simulator", even if they also all happen to be train simulators and mentioned [elsewhere as such. PamD 09:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that these are all in the same genre, they are also all still referred to as "Train Simulator," and there is no primary topic here. This disambig has a valid use case, and is fine to be kept. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Arsement

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

Fails WP:NBIO, nothing really significant just a series of "he did this" or unreliable sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source three is likely a RS. the rest don't seem to be... Source six is about his wife. This [14] is a brief listing, I don't think we have enough to confirm notability needed for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources, in here and available. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources to make this article bigger 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot World

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

Non-notable mobile game. Sourcing about the game itself leans heavily to primary sources, low-quality secondary blog coverage or user-generated social media and influencer youtube videos. The more reliable coverage about SpinX and their business activities, such as from GameDeveloper, Nikkei, or Reuters, barely mentions Jackpot World. May be one to consider framing as notability for a WP:CORP and not for the game itself. I accept the game itself is quite popular but there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage on it from what I can see. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netmarble. Agree with nom that Jackpot World is poorly covered in RS, failing WP:GNG. Developer is covered, although questionably well enough for an WP:NCORP pass, but in any case doesn't have an article, so redirect to parent company of developer. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look shows that the Netmarble article doesn't mention SpinX, but it easily could: [15] [16] [17] [18] ~ A412 ^talk! 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems appropriate to me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. After careful consideration, I also agree that "Redirect to Netmarble" makes more sense. JulieBole (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've played this game for years and I think it should be kept. It was released by the publisher before it was acquired. 42.200.218.17 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. You might like to put 'keep' in bold at the front of your message to better signal your vote on the deletion discussion. It isn't necessary but can help to provide a policy reason why you vote one way or another in a deletion discussion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game terminology)

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

Appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH or original research. There is no significant coverage about the use of the term "melee" in games that passes notability standards, it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and expand/improve. The historical context provided already clearly goes beyond a dicdef, and it would be astonishing if there were not more sources for this concept, in light of the popularity of games using such a system. BD2412 T 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of BD2412, and I suspect I could have said the same of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee weapon if I had noticed that discussion. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, those sources have not been demonstrated. Saying you assume sources will be discovered sometime in the future is not a sufficient rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar returns 21,400 hits for a search for "melee in role playing games" (notably, some specifically reference Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is a melee-themed fighting game with popular Nintendo characters, not yet mentioned in this article). BD2412 T 04:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While melee is commonly used as a term in gaming and I cannot deny that, I cannot find evidence that the term is notable in itself. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang book. A term has to pass GNG to have an article. Simply being used as part of an unrelated scholarly paper is an incidental and trivial use.

In terms of SSB Melee, the word is used to reference its original meaning of a physical fight. It doesn't have anything to do with the game terminology described in this article. The subsequent game is called "Brawl", also meaning a physical fight.

The best I can see for this article is being redirected to Role-playing game terms or Glossary of video game terms like many similar articles of its kind have been. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we redirect it when there is cited content that could be merged? I could see a merge to Melee. BD2412 T 18:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term is more adequately defined at Wiktionary's definition: [19]. This is just a dictionary definition with no significant coverage discussing why this terminology is important beyond just being a word in the gamer lexicon. All above arguments for keeping have assumed coverage exists, so unless sourcing turns up, I'm siding with the nom, who seems to have done a well-researched BEFORE. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a (gaming terminology) article, it contains significant original research. I would merge/redirect to Role-playing game terms or delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ The entomology of the word is probably notable given the sources. At the least there are sources that seem count toward WP:N. A merge to Little Wars is another possibility, but I'm not thrilled with that given how short that article is... Hobit (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This is yet another WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Unless said sources can be definitively shown, such arguments should be seen as holding no water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to everyone: This is yet another "I didn't read the article but I have an opinion anyways" comment. What I'm trying to say is that's it's rude to talk past someone like that. The sources I'm referring to are in the article. If you don't like those sources, please explain why or ask. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit on your sources point:

-The first two sources appear to be trivial mentions that just mention that the terminology of melee was used here. Mentions like this, especially for word definitions, need to have stronger substance. If it was a full few paragraphs discussing the importance of the melee term within the context of the games, or as a whole, for example, there'd be stronger substance here.

-The second two (3 and 4) don't mention melee at all, and are just mentioning that the rules of the game made by Wells carried on afterward. This pertains to Wells's games, not to the melee terminology.

-Source 5 doesn't even mention melee, again pertaining to how the rules of Wells's games were adapted to another medium. Source 6 mentions melee, but doesn't elaborate upon them and instead is just using the terminology like a person with game familiarity would. The source isn't about melee at all, and is just stating that melee is involved with it.

Basically everything in this is a trivial mention of the term, and around half the sources don't mention the term at all. This is primarily about Wells's games, not about the term melee. There's no independent notability shown with these sources, especially given there's no real Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego has summed up my opinion on it as well, I can't disagree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback folks--I agree there isn't enough to meet WP:N. Limited Merge to Melee per BD2412 is where I am now. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with that outcome as well. BD2412 T 02:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect An article isn't the appropriate way to cover this. I have my doubts that this meets WP:SIGCOV without violating WP:OR, by cobbling together a lot of different sources that use this in a lot of different contexts. But there is a Glossary of video game terminology that would make a good target. I'm also open to other ideas. The point is that the topic may not even be called "melee" but also "close combat" or "swordplay" or "hack and slash", and it's better to try to create a unified topic than to have an article for every dictionary definition. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Godzilla: Monster of Monsters - sizable reviews in fr:Player One (magazine): [20], Mean Machines: [21] (pages 84-86), Electronic Gaming Monthly: [22]. Enough for WP:GNG. Also smaller reviews in pt:VideoGame: [23], Nintendo Power: [24]. Redirect Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel - didn't find any reviews or significant coverage for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one review for Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. [25],[26] Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Mika1h. It's weak, but there's enough for this game to pass the notability bar. Godzilla 2 should likely be Merged with Monster of Monsters given their overlap, with any Reception for War of the Monsters covered there. If anything more for the sequel comes up, ping me and I'll change my vote, but for now I feel that Mika1h's assessment is entirely accurate to how I feel on the matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found. This is notable and can pass our guidelines/policies. And if anyone finds it too tedious to add the sources, try to tag me and I'll try to play a part as my time allows. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There might be more sources out there in addition to the ones found by Mika1h to further establish the page's overall notability. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

[1] Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.

[2] Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[3] "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[4] Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[5] Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[6] Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.

[7] Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]