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

Build order

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

This article has been lying out without sources for over a decade. More importantly, this article already has a substantial amount of content that we could cite sources to in its current state, but that would be a bad idea so we would rewrite the article instead - however, upon searching for sources, I, of course whatever I found is most likely not reliable. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't even find a source that could allow it to be redirected to the glossary of terms. Simply too niche and applies to more stuff than games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Ball Pool

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR with zero references. A previous RfD resulted in a redirection to Eight-ball. Miniclip video game fails WP:NVG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find several reviews of the game in reliable sources: CNET [1], The Ledger [2], Pocket Gamer [3] and some covered in WP:VG/RS like Gamezebo (Facebook version) [4] and Slide to Play [5]. The game passes WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jovanmilic, appears to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jovanmilic.Timur9008 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Old Republic: Fatal Alliance

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

Fails WP:NBOOK: being on the NYT bestseller list is not enough to establish notability. Needs another piece of secondary coverage. TheForce.net doesn't seem like a reliable source. Suggesting redirect/merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic#Novels as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Video games. Mika1h (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Library Journal has a review of the book here. Together with the bestseller list, this should fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:NBOOK. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that count as an actual review though? It's marked as a review by the site but there is very little of critical analysis that I expect of a review. It reads more like a plot summary and I'd count that kind of coverage as trivial. --Mika1h (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is rather brief. I see commentary in there, but I understand that that can be a matter of debate. Fortunately I've found another review by IGN here, with slightly more commentary. So overall I remain with my keep opinion, but am not fundamentally opposed to a merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic#Novels as an WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another review in Booklist [6] should be enough combined with those above. Since these are rather short, I agree with Daranios' point about a merge.ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the sources found.Timur9008 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia bootdisk

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

Almost entirely original research, clearly fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE did not come up with much in the way of substance. It seems this article flew under the radar for 19 years since nobody cared that much about an obscure Dreamcast piracy tool, but it certainly doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. There are no reliable sources that discuss the subject, therefore it clearly fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Freeloader

AfDs for this article:

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

As much as I dislike region locks on systems, this short-lived software did not seem to get any SIGCOV in reliable sources. I have checked the previous AfD, but the sources mentioned are very short and weak, and could not be used to write a comprehensive treatment of the subject. A check in gaming magazines came up with little as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glitching (video games)

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

This is mostly sourced to unreliable places or is original research, and it does not appear to pass WP:GNG at all. While some might suggest a redirect to Glitch#Video game glitches as an WP:ATD, there's nothing reliably sourced in that section concerning this topic either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as unnecessary split. Glitches in video games aren't particularly different from the normal definition of a glitch. Sourced content can be added there if necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect dearth of sourcing to show why this split is necessary. Masem (t) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as an unnecessary split. Unless the section is removed (which I would oppose), it's a reasonable title for an {{r to section}}. We shouldn't delete redirects just because the section they point to is low-quality. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was at the title Glitching until immediately before this AfD. The nominating editor also removed a hatnote from Glitchers, prematurely to my mind (I have reinstated it). Note that "Glitching" and "Glitcher" do not occur in the article Glitch, while they do occur in the article Glitching (video games). But a Google search finds, in the first couple of pages, only software and company names, and "glitching" as in "glitches occurring", rather than anything to do with seeking them out. PamD 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if evidence were found that "glitching" as a gaming-specific term has actually been acknowledged by reliable sources, it still wouldn't be primary over "glitching" in the manner of an object encountering a glitch. Therefore regardless of this AfD's outcome, I don't think that will change. There's also no clear evidence of "glitcher" being a recognized gaming term. I don't find much related to games when I search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, though it doesn't change my stance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I propose slightly adjusting the scope for this article? Renaming the article to "Glitch hunting" might work better, because it's a more common term for what the article is describing and has importance in the world of speedrunning. Speedruns are getting more mainstream, and there's documentation available about glitch hunting on forums and social media platforms. I'm not sure if places like Discord or Twitter can actually work as reliable sources, which might be a problem for sourcing, but I just wanted to at least make the case for this article because many games have highly competitive speedrun scenes and many people in these communities spend a lot of time solving difficult and technical problems. Teafed .˰. (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend entirely on if reliable third party sources report on it. There's nothing like that currently in the article. Personally, if you're changing the scope, prose, and sources of the article, you're probably better off just starting over new (if it meets the WP:GNG.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some sources on glitch hunting ([7], [8]), but not enough for a standalone page. This still seems like it's better off added to glitch. I'd encourage that for now and if it gets inordinately large and clearly notable, it can be spun out again in a way that actually makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covet Fashion

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VICE is major significant coverage, and I found additional SIGCOV here in this physical book, but Venture Beat seems more like an interview/primary source. I am not seeing GNG being passed here. If others discover more, I am willing to change my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was able to find this article from Fortune, but it requires a subscription to read so I'm unable to assess if it's significant coverage or not. I also found another interview from Venture Beat and short coverage from Bleeding Cool about a New York Fashion Week update - I don't think these really demonstrate notability but they may be useful for a 'development' section if article is kept. Waxworker (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage in Fortune appears to be an article solely on the topic. The Vice article is clearly above the WP:N bar. The Bleeding Cool one is probably above the bar for "significant". That's 2 or 3 sources, all of which are solely focused on the topic. The other sources have decent information, but appear to be press releases or otherwise primary. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little significant coverage comfortably independent of the subject. The Fortune, VentureBeat and Vice articles provide significant coverage, but are interspersed closely with interviews and many read like profiles of the business achievements of their creator. The Fortune article reveals itself to be part of a "daily newsletter on the world’s most powerful women", and as you read you get the sense that all its information comes from the developer as the source, which flatters her immensely: "Like any good marketer, Ethington knows her product intimately". Gita Jackson of Vice recounts herself attending a Fashion Week event held by Covet and: surprise! Both she and Covet seem very keen to name drop sponsor fashion brand Badgley Mischka front and centre, as Fuchs says: "“I think Covet provides an opportunity for people to experience Badgley Mischka that wouldn’t otherwise have that opportunity". The other articles, like Bleeding Cool and Disney News, are ephemera around game updates. Needs something a little more evaluative and removed from the creators to suggest it's not held up by puff pieces. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vector TDx

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

Got reviews from IGN and PocketGamer, everything else is an unreliable source or trivial mention. Attempts to find significant coverage in magazines failed. Doesn't seem to pass the notability threshold for a new article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Could not find more sources about this game. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this might get there. Small review from The Guardian [9]. My read of WP:SALON.COM is that it's borderline as a source. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly small, so I won't immediately withdraw the nomination, though I do admit that it might push people to "weak keep". Now I essentially have no opinion about whether it should get deleted or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dug through the web and found few more sources: Four more passing mentions on IGN, JayIsGames (twice), Four more passing mentions on Kotaku, and a few more articles on PocketGamer (1, 2, 3, 4). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15#Nuzlocke