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

Extreme Gamer

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Site listing at review aggregators like GameRankings and Metacritic is not an indication of notability. Was recently PRODed, that was objected and redirected to Video game journalism but "Extreme Gamer" isn't mentioned in that article. List of video game websites could be a possible redirect but that list seems to be for only websites that have an article. Mika1h (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, Websites, and Canada. Mika1h (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New Order: Last Days of Europe

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, as it contains only a single notable source, that being an article in Wargamer. Other sources include forum posts, wiki articles, and a student newspaper article. I can find no further sources on the topic. CitrusHemlock 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CitrusHemlock 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am responsible for the only other article on a HOI4 mod, that being Kaiserreich (mod). And during my source searches, I searched for material for TNO as well, and came back with nothing. What's here in this article isn't particularly convincing either. λ NegativeMP1 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not have enough notability and outside sources to remain in place. Comparing it to Kaiserreich, it appears completely lackluster and as such should be relegated back to its previous position: a footnote on the main Hoi4 page. LivelytheTrain (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hearts of Iron 4, this lacks coverage in reliable sources, I think a redirect is suitable as it's a very popular mod for the game. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour Civilization

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

This article is about an insignificant passing internet meme that, like many others, fails the general notability guidelines. Every source in use here is from a tabloid, borderline unreliable source (save for Rolling Stone) that talks about a brief internet trend rather the series itself. To go into specifics, Daily Dot and Dexerto are tabloids that should be used with caution and cannot demonstrate notability per WP:RSP, IMBD is user-generated content and is unreliable as a result per WP:IMBD, and Times Now is an undiscussed source, but due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA it doesn't look good. And even if these sources were reliable, they are mostly just showcasing social media posts and don't actually hold any critical commentary. The show also fails WP:SUSTAINED, since every source was published in a short time frame, and nothing new has been written about the subject since as found by my WP:BEFORE searches. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per well argued nom. There appears to be a dearth of WP:INDEPTH WP:RELIABLE sources on the topic of the article (and not a tangentially related meme [which also doesn't pass the bar of WP:N]). Only the Rolling Stone article meets all the criteria that are needed to contribute to WP:GNG, and we can't hang an article on one source. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draft, as the page creator, I agree that it doesn't reach notability guidelines. Mainly due to WP:SUSTAINED like you mentioned. The page itself has brought myself a overload of anxiety due to the fact I thought for sure it was going to get deleted at some point. The Rolling Stone article is the only thing that actually gives anything insightful on the topic, but Wikipedia needs at least two reliable sources that meet the criteria to be considered notable. I am still new to Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the best outcome would be. The subject itself is only ~60% of the way to being considered notable, though, It could be possible it gains another notable source at some point in the future. (no idea if that'd be bringing it back to draft or just appealing it when the time comes)

Please do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but as for now I'd appreciate if it was sent back to draft space or deleted. ^-^ Kaixvny (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, there is no real "criteria" for what makes something notable or not. The notability guidelines only calls for "multiple" reliable sources. So depending on the depth of the sources at hand (multiple pages, academic coverage, etc.), that number could be as low as two, but many people writing about pop-culture topics sourced to news websites generally try and aim for three in-depth sources (though, again, this is not a requirement). But this doesn't really meet that anyways. With that being said, I'm sorry if worrying about if the article would survive or not stressed you out. It's just part of the learning process on Wikipedia that I have faced myself, as have many others. It takes a while to learn and get used to, but in the end it works out. λ NegativeMP1 22:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I think i pulled the number two from HELP:AFD in "How to save the article.", I completely agree, and I'm glad this page is finally getting a outcome, it feels much more like breather than anything. As later on during its lifespan, I realized how much I stretched out the sources I had, and the fact it was a ticking time-bomb. Like I said, I still believe it it could eventually reach notability/better coverage in the future but not as of this moment, though could It possibly be shrunken down into a paragraph in List of Internet phenomenas? Honestly, it may still be too un-notable for that but I'm just thinking of other possible outcomes. Kaixvny (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about nominate this article myself, but forgot about it. I agree with everything NegativeMP1 said. My search on DDG and Google showed up no other usable source besides a questionable source Dexerto. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: This article was obviously written by fans of the series, for fans of the series. But I think the article should be drafted rather than deleted, providing a chance for it to be reworked into a more encyclopedic article.—theMainLogan (t•c) 17:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Afton

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

IMO, this should be redirected, draftified, deleted, or failing all of those things, sourced. Unfortunately, the first two options will likely be reverted by the article creator. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No notability at all. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's a valid search term but isn't notable non its own. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's - The current article is completely unsourced, and searches are not bringing up much in the way of non-plot coverage of the character. He is already discussed throughout the main FNAF series article, where his role in the plot throughout the various games is described, so a Redirect there would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the points of the others. Unsourced and has little to no content, with no indication of notability shown. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per all. Mostly unsourced, but seems like a clear and valid search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moonmana

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool and companies must be significantly mentioned in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added more links and deleted information about current game in development (which has no notable cites).

The links include top MMO news websites about the release of Ultimate pirates by Gameforge (top MMO publisher in the world):

MMOhuts.com, MMObomb.com, F2P.com, MMOgames.com

These are the biggest and most notable web sites focused on MMO which can post a news about an MMO game release. And they all posted the news. 37.12.106.21 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, all references are user-generated content or simply from automated aggregators, and search yields no articles beyond this. More sources that actually may indicate notability (as opposed to mainly app store listings before) have been added to the article now, I'm not sure of their reliability however so this has been stricken.
Molecular Pilot 09:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Is Yahoo news an automated aggregator? Which search yields no articles? Warmonger123 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, Are you sure all the links lead to user generated content? There are link to the top MMO news sites with news added by the news website editors, not regular users. The only links which lead to user generated content, are the links to the released web games on top portals for web games. To appear in the list of Armor games, you actually can't just submit your game. Armor games should choose your game to be published there and add your game to their portal and you should sign a publishing agreement to do so. This is not just something placed somewhere what any user can do.

Please be more specific. So far, it seems like you didn't check the links and wrote your message just by clicking a random one and made a wrong conclusion. Warmonger123 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on Google and the only results that appeared where the Google Play Store page, LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, official website for the company and there were no results under the "news" tab. I couldn't find anything from Yahoo or those other websites you mentioned. Would you mind linking them? Thanks! :) Molecular Pilot 22:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sorry I thought the other websites in the reference list where just aggregators, if you think that something has to be notable to be listed there I'll trust you because I don't really know much about video games. Molecular Pilot 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some links to avoid confusion and added more links to news sites. You probably see no news in the google search because the news related to the games are old and only googlable together with game titles. MMO games are hard to make and it takes several years to make one. Warmonger123 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! The original reference list I saw when I commented on this AfD was concerning because it only linked to Newgrounds, Play Store etc. but these articles you've added seem to demonstrate notability, merely publishing a game does not. I have stricken my comment but I don't feel comfortable suggesting keep as I'm not sure if the new sources are reliable. Molecular Pilot 06:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still confused which sources the article creator claims pass WP:NCORP, if they have read the guideline at all. WP:ORGTRIV specifically states that "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" are not grounds for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to orgtriv, product launch considered as standard notice. If for game development companies we have to consider all product launch sources as standard notices, then all video game companies in wikipedia should be removed because they won't have any notable sources. Give me an example, how your recent article Tharsis (video game) can not be considered for deletion then, which sources are notable there? All sources you provided are either user-generated content (reviews) or, accoridng to orgtriv, are standard notices. Let's then go through all articles in wikipedia about video games and video game development companies and delete them, because all of them rely on sources relared on product launches, which are not notable, right? Warmonger123 (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I am not here to protect the page no matter what, if you prove it should not be here, let it be deleted. I find wikipedia guidelines quiet blurry, so, let's figure out together where the line is in the fog. Warmonger123 (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The newly added sources still lack significant coverage about the company. They consist of routine coverage and passing mentions. --Mika1h (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article on yahoo, the game launch by Glu and Moonmana is the main topic of the article posted by subsidiary of NASDAQ. Most of the article is covering that, this is not a passing mention.

All articles related to Ultimate pirates are passing mentions about Moonmana, but the main topic is Moonmana's game launch. We have 2 games covered, still not enough for the company page? Warmonger123 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo article is a press release, not an independent source per WP:PRSOURCE. Also per WP:CORPTRIV, announcements of product launches are not significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am new in wikipedia and trying to figure out how to understand the rules.

Can you please help me to understand what could be an example of an article in the internet which can pass the rules of wikipedia to make a game developer company eligible to be added to wikipedia? If I go through wikipedia game developers and check their article sources, there is almost no game development company which has sources that fit the criteria. So, following the rules, 90-95% of game developers and games have to be deleted from wikipedia, because the articles rely on press releases, announcements of games (products), paid articles or interviews (not independent), biased game reviews etc.

For example, let's take the developer, which definitely should be in the wikipedia: Don't_Nod

Please check the list of the links the article has and tell me at least one, which doesn't fail WP:NCORP criteria. If I go through the list, I can't find a single link, which can pass the WP:NCORP criteria. But the developer is still there. (And should be IMO). Give me a link I'll tell you which criteria it fails. Warmonger123 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gamekult's article about the company's financials: [1]. Edge's multi-page studio profile seems substantial: [2], Game Developer's report of a report on mismanagement at the company: [3]. --Mika1h (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. company financials - fails WP:NCORP, falls under Examples of trivial coverage: routine coverage, such as: of annual financial results and earning forecasts

2. Facebook in an unreliable source according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Facebook

3. An article about working conditions STJV union claims are not good at "don't nod" according to employees - fails WP:NCORP, see Examples of trivial coverage: coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies. Warmonger123 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think? Let's delete "don't nod"? :) Warmonger123 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the coverage passes WP:ORGCRIT. In fact, the Yahoo article is a press release (Yahoo is one of the many aggregators or press releases from Ciscon, Global News Wire, and others). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know yahoo is an aggregator of press releases. I have remove the link. I have added new links today, including MSN and gamebiz.jp.

Please check the links and tell me if they work. Also please check this link: https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmo-launch-spotlight-actual-abandonware-hits-steam-this-week-2000131728

It was there before, but I don't understand which criteria it doesn't meet. Warmonger123 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: both Microsoft, Gamebiz.jp and the editor from mmorpg.com decided to highlight the games by themselves, these are not press-releases. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it is not common practice to throw up references that then ask people "if they work." If you believe they are reliable to show notability, you will need to state so along with the reason why. Nothing that I have seen on the page or in a search show notability here. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have more experience in wikipedia. I am not an expert in journalism, I don't know how to differintiate a press-release from an article, not in all cases. Sometimes it's clear when a company gives a press release and you can see the text is definetely written by the company and is not neutral, sometimes is not obvious. I didn't know Yahoo is an agregator of news, so, I added the link, though it was a news, but you siad it was a press-release and I removed it.

I am 100% sure that news from Microsoft and Mmorpg.com are not press releases. Both are reliable sources, both not brief mentions, both articles dedicated to the company's games, both neutral. 2 links = multiple sources. Warmonger123 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Johnson (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any SIGCOV, and while prolific, doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Unsourced BLP. GraziePrego (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Video games, Advertising, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage and existing for 10 years as an unreferenced biographical article about a living person. I think Boleyn correctly nominated this article; the past AfD had minimal participation. I did a couple of Google searches and found scant support for notability: this interview, some self- or fan-created sources, Amazon, IMDB, etc. Bearian (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([4] [5] [6] [7]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fanatec. Endor AG as a parent company is not notable, but Fanatec certainly is (Google News). No, it's not mentioned in the New York Times, but not everything has to be. It's mentioned in PC Gamer, Tom's Guide, various other notable gaming, racing and electronics hardware sources, especially regarding the bankruptcy. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Yes, the sources do mention Endor AG a lot but only in the context of "the maker of Fanatec wheels is going bankrupt", and only for this one event. Endor AG, as a business, is not notable </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" does not make something pass WP:NCORP. Where is the significant coverage that proves Fanatec is notable and passes the guidelines? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't close AFDs with Move closures which are an editorial decision. If you want this outcome, argue for a Keep and then a page move can be discussed. Also, it really helps the closer if you provide a link to the exact Redirect or Merge target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a little more coverage of the game (here and here), which, while not exactly stellar, is sufficient to keep the article alongside the other sources. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTTEMPORARY, what was good enough for 2011 is still good enough, unless there's a very specific guideline change that negates previous arguments. -Fangz (talk)
- Also I found this academic article discussing the game. [8] and this Masters Thesis [9] -Fangz (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Fangz is right; getting discussed by academics and featuring so heavily (extended text about the game, and a statement that it was one of two games that inspired the investigation) in an MSc elevates it beyond run-of-the-mill game, and gives notability. Elemimele (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was saying that the 2011 discussion was not up to 2024 standards, not that the article's notability suddenly "disappeared".

To call the new sources trivial mentions is putting it lightly, I simply don't agree it stacks up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#List of Strogg in Quake II