Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game-related

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Points of interest related to Computer and video games on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - - -

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to computer or video games. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
removing closed AFDs.
removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|computer or video games}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|computer or video games}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

1 Game-related deletions

[edit] Game-related deletions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to List of GameCube games. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 01:09Z

[edit] Chronological list of GameCube games

Here's the thing, if this list was done and perfect, I'd see no reason to delete it. However, it is only about 20 to 40% complete, and the only user who seems active it working on it is User:Bovineboy2008. Now, I don't want to just destory all of the hard work he's done, but I also don't want him to waste anymore time on a list that we may not even want. As it stands, it's just an inferior shoot-off of List of GameCube games which, at this pace, won't be done until the end of the year. Also, I don't like encouraging more than one list for a console, as it's hard enough to keep just one up to date. So I think we should go ahead and either kill it or save it, but not let it dangle in this semi-finished state. SeizureDog 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - The list seems redundant at best. Though I must say, incompleteness (unless it can never be complete) isn't a good reason to delete something as the nature of the wiki encourages incomplete entries to be completed later when other editors come upon an article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I think that we should get more people to work on it, or else it won't be done until next Christmas. If we can't get more people to work on it, then delete it or use it to help with the other list if it needs help. --Austinsimcox 15:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The length of time it will take to complete this is irrelevant there is no deadline. The list is useful and should be allowed to be completed. Shimaspawn 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep So, it is only being worked on by one user, and he'll take a while to complete it? So what? That's not grounds for deletion. The organizational information it offers is reasonable, see also prior discussion on the Playstation lists. If you're really troubled by it being a separate list, talk to the user about merging the information to the List of Gamecube games or working on it in his/her userspace. Mister.Manticore 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Incompleteness is a reason for cleanup, but not usually a reason for deletion. So unless there's another problem with the article, I'd say keep and hopefully interested editors will get it updated. Dugwiki 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Incompleteness isn't a reason to delete, but the list is somewhat redundant, and List of GameCube games contains far more information. I'm undecided as to whether the chronological format is of use; I think there's an argument to be made. But I think this list should be expanded with some of the other's information (developer, publisher) in order to make it more useful, or else the dates should be merged to the other list (which contains years, but not exact dates, of release currently). Hm... wonder whether there's a way to make a table sortable by selected header... Shimeru 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge Too much redundancy with List of GameCube games, so merge the release date data. Wikitables sortable by column has already been done successfully, example: List of Wii games. --SubSeven 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per SubSeven. The redundancy could be easily avoided by merging the articles together and supplying a sortable wikitable. Arkyan 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was wondering if we had code for stuff like this. Are we capable of making tables where we can do things like "Sort by title/year/company" etc? Or what exactly do you mean.--SeizureDog 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, we have code that does that and makes it quite easy to incorporate. The example listed above by SubSeven is a good example of how it works. Arkyan 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Oops, missed that. Links next to sigs=easy to miss. In that case, merge ftw.--SeizureDog 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can also support above merge The above merge using a sortable table sounds pretty reasonable. I'd support that or keeping, either one. Dugwiki 22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to sortable table. Dr bab 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge to a sortable table, since incompleteness is not a deletion criterion; it clearly has narrow enough scope to be maintainable. — brighterorange (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There is no deadline to complete articles. That being said, I believe a merge to List of GameCube games and converting that into a sortable table (if I remember correctly, class="sortable prettytable") is appropriate. Two additional suggestions: replace "Year" in List of GameCube games with "Date" (in the format [[YYYY-MM-DD]] and eliminate sorting by letter (essentially a prerequisite for a sortable table). -- Black Falcon 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- However, since closing admins are not slaves, I recommend closing as keep and suggesting a merge (if that is indeed the consensus) on one or more talk pages. -- Black Falcon 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I see no pressing reason to delete, given that articles such as Chronology of PlayStation 2 games hasn't been nominated either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with nominating that as well...--SeizureDog 13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:17Z

[edit] Out of the Park Baseball

Non-notable computer game. Only one article cited that discusses this game. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. The article as it stands is pretty poor, but the game has been the subject of pretty widespread coverage, and I'll be glad to expand it once things aren't quite so crazy here at work (maybe in a week or so?). This review in the San Francisco Chronicle is pretty extensive, as is this review in PC Gamer, and this article in the Washington Post cites it as the leading baseball front office sim. There are also off-line articles on the game in Computer Gaming World (7/7/01), Macworld (October '06), as well as web reviews in sites like Gamespot [1], GameSpy [2][3], etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Hit bull, win steak's reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
keep and expand per HBWS. — brighterorange (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete no notability shown Fotografico 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep and close There is a big and phat list of sources provided above, here is a gamesindustry.biz article covering Sports Interactive's acquisition of Out of the Park, so even that can be referenced. QuagmireDog 11:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep this game is more notable that you might think. Updated every year (OOTP2007 being released in March) and subject of press articles as noted above. --CPAScott 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep, at least for now. Those in favor of deletion are correct that this is in need of major cleanup, at a minimum. However, a significant number of people want to give interested editors some time to work on it, especially since at least one has articulated a tentative plan. So let's try that first. — TKD::Talk 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of terms in Xenosaga

Delete Lengthy and unsourced glossary type article on a fictional topic, but the vast amount of detail which constitutes most of this article looks like fanfic, and I cannot find any reliable sources. If verifiable, reliable sources cannot be supplied for this, it should be deleted as per WP:V. In addition, This article suffers under notability, it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective, with nothing at all in the world of out-of-universe, real-world citation. Where's the cultural relevance for a general readers encylopedia? Larry laptop 10:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Let me just run down a few things. First off, the reliable sources: the game is a reliable source. More specifically, it's the primary source, and as such is perfectly suitable for matters of WP:RS and WP:V, but not WP:N. Instead, notability is in this case asserted by the "parent" article which the list was (presumably) split off from: Xenosaga. From WP:FICT: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. (emphasis mine) The rest of the nominator's objections warrant a cleanup, not a deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept some of your points but if we followed what you said to your logical conclusion "list of colour of booties that Link wore" would be fine because notability would be expressed by the parent article of "the legend of Zelda" would be there and we'd have the primary source of the game to draw upon. --Larry laptop 11:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because if that information were included in the article it would be removed as "tangential" or "irrelevant" information. Notability of list information is established by its notability if it were included in the main article, irrespective of the effect it would have on article flow/size/etc. in that hypothetical. Each of the elements (as far as I can tell) in this list is about a specific plot point, character, or otherwise significant thing within the Xenosaga fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per List of coloured boots that Link wore. --tjstrf talk 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Sonofa... well I guess it's not too tangential then. :P -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering, they all happen to be brown. Except the flippers, which aren't really boots. --tjstrf talk 12:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my lord! :-) (is this going to be the first afd that gets increasingly good-humoured and warm as it goes on?) --Larry laptop 12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I can't say it any better than yukichiga did. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOT. Gameguide/cruft. Everything is written from an in-universe perspective with no attempt at real world context or relevance (I mean the article has stuff like

"Ω ID is Ω Universitas in ID Mode. When in ID Mode the craft changes color from blue to red and projects out bright teal wings of energy similar to KOS-MOS' Third Armament. Ω ID is remarkably similar in appearance and purpose to Xenogears' Weltall -ID-, the powerful and destructive "alter-ego" of the game's central Gear, Weltall. It is accessible only near the end of the game after Citrine is defeated aboard the Durandal. She drops a key to the Weapons Development Area of the CAT Facility on Fifth Jerusalem, where the fight between KOS-MOS and Ω Res Novae was held. Revisiting the facility through the EVS, a player can enter the sealed-off section and fight both Ω Universitas and Ω ID.".

I can tell that the above section is a game guide hint, and that's about it.

Wikipedia is not a game guide site/fan site. There are plenty of other sites for that kind of thing. I'm very skeptical about the Zelda/Link items list too, though at least that has the decency not to stay in-universe and also not to allow excessive detail on each item Bwithh 13:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've said it before and I'll say it again: objections concerning writing style (such as in-universe perspective) or portions of the article warrant a cleanup tag, not deletion. Basically, these are fixable problems. None of the issues you have raised are concerning the article's subject as a whole. (Except for "cruft", which isn't an argument so much as a way of saying "I don't like it.") -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

- The fancruft argument is not an extension of WP:ILIKEIT, its an extension of WP:NOT. Even leaving that issue aside, the entire article needs massive cleanup and proper referencing, following WP:NOR, WP:FICT and WP:WAF. The guideline in WP:FICT that minor characters should be merged into one list should not be used as a loophole excuse to allow large unwieldy articles which are amassed collections of rambling no-context plot points. If the article was completely revamped according to the guidelines and standards, it would look nothing like how it does now. If you want to go ahead and totally stubify/rework the article, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. Bwithh 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is properly referenced, or rather has a very minimal threshold for referencing with regards to verifiability, as most (if not all) of the information is implicitly (or in some cases explicity) sourced to the primary source, i.e. the game(s) each section subject appears in. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per my plans to rework the Xenosaga articles in the future to decrease the amount of fan masturbation (of which I was guilty of when I first came here nearly two years ago). Let it stay until the plans are set in motion, so that we don't lose the edit history. As I point out on my userpage, don't rush to AfD articles if someone is planning on revamping the article(s) in question (as I stated on the CVG talkpage a day before the AfD was started). I'm not going to pull an all-nighter to work on these articles just because one is on AfD, either; I'll work on them, all right, but it'll have to be when I have the time to do it. If, two months from now, the articles are in the same state, I probably can't find the time to do it and therefore a deletion may be best. But let's be patient here. — Deckill e r 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a dig at you - but I've lost count of the amount of times that people have said "honest guv", I'll clean it up in the future. Once the AFD is over, nothing happens. --Larry laptop 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem; AfD is being done more and more incorrectly as of late. AfD should always be a last resort, not a wakeup call; I find it best to let users know that these kinds of articles are unacceptable on an encyclopedia, and then give them ample time to consider a plan and make a major turnaround (like the Final Fantasy pages). Unfortunately, I have been unable to realize my full plans for the Xenosaga pages because of other pressing matters (finsihing what I began at the Final Fantasy wikiproject, copyediting, reviving the star wars project and continuing star wars cleanup, working on an FA, and so on). Either way, the AfD has been launched, and all that is moot because editors are now going to be forced.

Another issue I've had for a while is the use of the term "gameguide". A gameguide is a walkthrough, describing how to do things in a game. This article describes plot elements from the series' storyline, for the most part. Therefore, it's not a gameguide, it's a violation of the "plot summary" clause in WP:NOT. Sourcing is not an issue, because the game provides both plot databases and even real-life influences! The article can easily be sourced with cites from the database (the game database is actually out of universe for the most part, making it reliable), and so on....IF the article were to stay in list form, which is pathetic because we don't need an inch by inch summary of every little element of Xenosaga. So, while the article has potential to remain in its current state with some cites and rewriting, that is not the idea.

The idea is to take all these organizations, terms, and locations, and merge it into one article describing the plot, another describing the technological aspects and their influences (japanese mecha, names deriving from myth, etc), and maybe a character list. However, with Xenosaga (which features more than 30 hours of cutscenes on the whole - that's more than 12 movies right there), such a heaping amount of information requires time to sort through what is important, what's not important, influences, and what is significant enough to note; not to mention finding the correct cites to avoid original interpretation, and keeping everything contained and succinct. This takes time, which a 5-day AfD doesn't provide.

However, just deleting this article is not a wise move, because some of this information may be kept (or at least the ideas), and edit histories are very important to me. Which is why I suggested keep and add numerous cleanup tags to designate that this article needs significant overhaul, compression, and merge into a more complete out of universe page - not simply delete and scare people off. Let editors realize what they're doing is wrong, and let them help fix it so that I'm not tackling yet another project alone. — Deckill e r 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per others' arguments. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Put this on a video game wiki, not here. RobJ1981 19:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't a game guide. The information in it would be useless to beating the game, it doesn't tell me HOW to do anything. --tjstrf talk 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep it isn't a game guide and it can be verified. Since the list is a solution to the fancruft it is being AfDed for, give the editors time to revamp it, and if it doesn't happen, then AfD the article again. Darth griz⁹⁸ 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This definitely should stay as many times throughout this series you will be confused in terms of the story, Wikipedia may not be a game guide but does talk about the story primarily, this is very helpful in trying to understand what is going on in the story.--Jack Cox 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what the guidelines at the gaming project says : A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. Isn't what you described just that? --Larry laptop 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's an explanation of the game's concepts for the non-player. Anyone who was actually in the process of playing the game would find the list of minimal benefit because they would already understand them. (Unless you have a shoddy memory or whatever, of course.) --tjstrf talk 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And a non-player would be interested in It is the form of Abel's consciousness in the "Imaginary Number Domain" while manifested into the "Real Number Domain" (similar to the Testaments). The Real Number Domain and the Imaginary Number Domain are the two planes of existence interwoven with each other in the Xenosaga Universe. The Real Number Domain is the plane of existence consisting of physical being and flesh (Material realm - All that we hear, see, smell, touch and taste) while the Imaginary Number Domain consists of consciousness, (Spiritual realm - emotions and heart etc). As the Ark is from the Imaginary Domain, it does not exist physically. Abel's Ark is the form of Abel's consciousness while Abel is the form of U-Do's physical being. They are referred to as "U-Do's eyes" because U-Do exists outside of the universe (in what's referred to as the "Higher Domain"). Abel's Ark and Abel are the way those within our universe (The "Lower Domain") perceive U-DO's observation. I see.... --Larry laptop 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How would it help me beat the game? It's not a game guide, it would never appear in a manual or FAQ because it has nothing to do with gameplay at all. The reason it exists is because the Xenosaga universe needs explained if you're going to be able to understand any of the other information about the game. Remember, comprehensiveness requires enough plot summary for the storyline to make sense to the reader. Complicated plots need a lot of plot summary to be comprehensible. --tjstrf talk 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did I mention anything connected to "help me beat the game"? in my comment? Besiding being rude, it's dishonest to answer comments with strawmen. --Larry laptop 08:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Game guide == guide to playing the game. This doesn't tell me how to play the game. There's no strawman there. Take a look at Game guide. It's a redirect to Strategy guide, which gives a list of commonly occurring contents of game guides. None of them match with this article at all. --tjstrf talk 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. How is this 'list of video game terms' not a video game guide? It is completely in-(Xenosaga)universe POV (Wikipedia is supposed to have a reality POV). Willing to reconsider if a secondary source establishing notability of terms with out-of-universe writing can be presented. --maclean 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- On the plus side, there are no verifiability or sourcing problems, and if the text is accurate to the game it's automatically neutral because fictional universes are generally objective. --tjstrf talk 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nom. - ZakuSage 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: once again, AfD is not frelling cleanup! If I want to state the fact that Hamlet is a prince I don't need a third party to say so, I can just cite the original text. As for the in universe stuff, tag it as {{in-universe}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The information is mostly fine, but the article title is annoying/misleading and smacks of WP:NOT (a dictionary). This would be much better suited for a gaming-specific wiki, or at least a sub-page of the main Xenosaga article. I might be more willing to keep if some broader notability were established (like cultural impact). --Alan Au 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It IS a subpage of the main Xenosaga article. Mediawiki no longer supports the subpage format in namespace, and hasn't for years. So it may not be at the title Xenosaga/List of terms, but it is a subpage. --tjstrf talk 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Deckiller's offer - if the article is still in its current state in a few months then feed it to the hobbitses, precious. There's a lot of material here, perhaps some could be transwikied, some deleted, some cleaned and merged etc. etc. Chucking the lot into the abyss when an offer of clean-up has been given would hardly be for the common good. QuagmireDog 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Deckiller's offer, at a minimum. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect. W.marsh 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renai game

This article is a duplicate of the subject of dating sim. Please do not close this AfD simply saying we can keep both articles, because we cannot have two articles about the same subject! I recommend Wikipedia choose the term "dating sim" simply because the titles of Wikipedia articles are not meant to reflect fandom jargon, but rather the most commonly used term. A brief overview for those who don't know:

The term "dating sim," meaning a video game focused around romance, has been in use in English since the 1990s. It is an English translation of the Japanese term 恋愛ゲーム ren'ai geemu. Dating sims have overlap with bishoujo games, meaning Japanese games involving cute girls, and visual novels, a medium similar to text adventure.
The term "dating sim" is commonly used in video game literature to describe any kind of romantic game, regardless of whether it is a simulation or text adventure, because that's simply the term commonly used in English. For example: Google News, Google Book Search, Google Scholar
The term "ren'ai game" is a neologism. It is not Japanese; that would be "ren'ai geemu." It is not English; that would be "romance game." And it is not used in reliable English sources at all. Google News, Google Book Search, Google Scholar
The publishers of romantic bishoujo games in English refer to them as "dating sims," even if they involve neither dating nor simulation, because "dating sim" is the term most commonly used in English. For example, Image:Kana cover.jpg, http://jbox.com/, http://www.peachprincess.com/ (click through to front page - NSFW)

So, I recommend this article be deleted as a neologism, or at least redirected to dating sim. The main content of this article is some stuff I wrote in the anime game article which was recently moved here by other people without my knowledge; I recommend it be moved somewhere else before deleting. Ashibaka (tock) 17:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete along with Anime game: It has become apparent that trying to make an article that includes both dating sim and visual novel is futile. The two genres should be conntected by nothing more than a link in "See also".--SeizureDog 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Del and redirect per nom. All the info is pretty much covered between dating sim and visual novel articles; since the ren'ai term is used in some circles, it could be added as an alternate name at the beginning of the article(s). Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as redundant, merge anything worth keeping in the dating sim article. Snarfies 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to dating sim. JuJube 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect. -- 9muses 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - Why delete and lose the edit history of the page? Just redirect the page and keep the edit history. --Squilibob 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - From what I understand, this is a popular genre game in Japan. (If geemu is a transliteration of game, then it makes sense to transliterate it back.) At least one English-language publisher is using Ren'Ai game [4]. Searching on the Japanese term on google.jp news gets some hits, which is evidence of notability there. PyTom 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Um, did you actually read my nomination, or do you think Wikipedia has a "use Japanese" policy? Please provide evidence that "ren'ai game" is more commonly used than "dating sim." We can't keep both articles. Ashibaka (tock) 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge, redirect to Dating sim. Has some salvageable information that is not listed at target. Also, Dating sim at this moment does not address the subsection of Adult dating sims. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comment: Anime game is currently a redirect. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Penwhale 12:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect per Penwhale, I'd suggest anything folks believe is worth porting is grabbed and pasted so the job's complete. QuagmireDog 14:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect -- isn't that pretty much always what we do with apparently redundant articles? If there's anything significant about this term, just give it a mention at dating sim, and that should be enough, no? Luna Santin 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- The Pickup Game on Newsgrounds is considered a dating sim in engish but wouldn't be considered a "ren'ai game". Also, The Pickup Game is actually about teaching guys how to pick up girls. It makes mention of the "3 second-rule" which is a term that orginates from the Mystery Method. The Mystery Method is a part of the Seduction Community. Counter Arts 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you cite some reliable sources, such as printed publications, for your uses of the term "dating sim" and "ren'ai game" in the context of the "seduction community"? Also, how does this invalidate the term "dating sim"? Ashibaka (tock) 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Can you cite a reliable source on the definition of the term Dating Sim, that it must have romance? You might be able to say how popular a term is by google results but you can't say what defintion it has by those results. The Pickup Game is not focused on romance. It is focused on picking up girls. Counter Arts 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    - So, which reliable source calls it a dating sim? Ashibaka (tock) 03:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, that game has over 1 million views on newgrounds alone. It also recieved an daily third place award on that site. It is listed as "dating sim". In my opinion, a lot of other people consider that a dating sim as it teaches how to pick up girls. Counter Arts 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        If the Badger Badger movie were referred to as a "dating sim" on Newgrounds would that invalidate this AfD too? (my roundabout point being that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reliably used terms, not new definitions created by websites) Ashibaka (tock) 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        "Dating Sim" is not a reliably used term. If you google Axe Dating Simulation the first hit is a flash game called Mojo Master. Mojo Master was a game/advertisement for Axe Products. A game review of Mojo Master does not reveal any romantic elements. Counter Arts 09:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        It is reliably used both in gaming publications, in published books, and by the licensors of the dating sims themselves, c.f. Image:Kana cover.jpg. Ashibaka (tock) 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Hm... The example of the cover of Kana is odd, since my copy doesn't contain the word "Dating Sim" at all. It's missing that flag at the bottom mentioning it. (See the cover on g-collection's site.) A quick survey of my collection shows Peach Princess using the term "Dating Sim", G-Collections using "Erotic Bishoujo Adventure", Hirameki using either "Interactive DVD", "Visual Novel", and whatever they're calling Piece of Wonder, LIBIDO using "dating game", Okashi Studios using "ren'ai game", and JAST-USA using "Love-sim". I personally think there's a distinction between "dating sim", which describes a mechanic, and "ren'ai", which is about content. PyTom 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Okashi Studios doesn't license games, they are just a bunch of fanboys. Ashibaka (tock) 05:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        That's a bit of a slur. They are producing an original game, and they had a booth in the industry hall of Otakon last year. PyTom 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Not with definition given as the reason for deletion for ren'ai game. GameDaily BIZ: Unilever Plays Games With Body Spray, Vgpub, [5], and the review of Mojo Master calls it a dating sim. There is nothing that really disputes that Mojo Master is a dating sim. However, Mojo Master has no romantic elements. Counter Arts 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. BorgQueen 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Kong Wii

Article provides no source of the game's existence. Jonny2x4 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep The sources are there, and three of the four are reliable gaming sites. However, nobody seems to have too many details on the game yet. But searches on different search-engines found some results. The article does need work and if there are more details out there they need to be found, but for now I think it's alright. Gan fon 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Recreation of content deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey Kong (Wii). Nothing has changed since then. --- RockMFR 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - We can't examine the previous, deleted version to be sure, but from the previous nomination it would seem to indicate that the Donkey Kong (Wii) article was only sourced to the related Gamespot page. This has four sources, not one. While notability might not have been proveable back in November, it is now. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All four sources are still trivial and speculative. There is nothing substantial at any of them. --- RockMFR 04:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, the IGN/GameStats links don't even refer to this game. They are pages for DK Bongo Blast, a completely different game. --- RockMFR 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivial and speculative outside sources are still outside sources so long as they are reliable. The fact that two of them aren't even about the right game is a good point though. Article doesn't establish notability so well anymore. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly Indifferent and Speedy Keep - I have no idea what the nominator was thinking, but the article provides not one but four sources which confirm to a relative degree of certainty that the game (or a plan to develop it) does exist. Meets WP:V, WP:RS, and (barely) WP:N. It may be stubby in nature, but most articles about upcoming games stay in stub form for a while. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing my opinion to Delete or Retarget to DK Bongo Blast per my above comments to RockMFR. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm calling crystalballery just based on some of the arguments in this very AfD. --Dennisthe2 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not ready for this. Delete per nom and Dennisthe2. Big top 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 12:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete; violates WP:CRYSTAL --Mhking 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's not WP:CRYSTAL because it's sourced. Sure, it's a stub and will stay a stub until more information is available, but the game still exists (or will exist, barring cancellation,) so what's the problem? -Ryanbomber 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Oops. Didn't notice that the sources were for a different game. -Ryanbomber 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep We got articles like W.I.T.C.H. (game)--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was merge and delete. BorgQueen 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen sacrifice example

I don't think we need an entire article just to illustrate one example of a queen sacrifice in chess. About a year ago it was started as a sub-article for Queen sacrifice but since then it hasn't gained any content other than the images. Crystallina 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete anything that is on there could easily be placed on Queen sacrifice. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge then delete pretty clear; not worthy of own article. Akihabara 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge & Delete per nom. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. James086Talk 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and delete This article proveides no context, but the images could be added in the main article. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The article should be merged and then deleted as it's not really got enough important info on it to have its own article. Should be deleted soon. Tellyaddict 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. The images can be useful. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete without merging. The example is pretty poor - I don't think a two-move combination counts as a Queen sac at all. It shouldn't be too hard to find a famous sacrifice to illustrate the idea. A better player than I would have to do it, though... -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
'Merge per above. Stand-alone example provides no context and is largely uninterpreable without the Queen Sacrifice article to support it. Also, it would be nice to have a notable example. --Shirahadasha 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, don't merge. The main article queen sacrifice speaks for itself. The additional diagrams are not particularly useful, and are not conventional to use in most other Wikipedia chess articles. YechielMan 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A single example does not normally deserve an article, and this example is stunningly uninteresting. An article devoted to a tactical theme, I could see, or something particularly notable like Philidor's legacy or the Saavedra study. But this, no. --OinkOink 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was merge and redirect to Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Artifact (Doom)

Delete - not notable outside the game, insufficient to sustain a separate article. Could merge to the Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil article. Otto4711 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - does not merit its own article. SYSS Mouse 03:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No case made that it is notable enough for an article. "Artifact" is apparently a really popular title for something in this genre. Ran out of letters and numbers? 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Edison
Merge to the game. Does not deserve its own article. JIP | Talk 10:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to the main article of the game. I don't believe that this specific subtopic is sufficient to warrant a separate article. TSO1D 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to the game's article ::mikm t 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge, not only is it "just a weapon", there's little backstory to it (even though it's an interesting weapon, I must say). Torte 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Because of the type of information presented, I think it should be kept seperate from Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ManaUser (talk • contribs) 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

The result was merge and redirect to List of Halo series characters. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tartarus (Halo)

Non-notable, both per the primary notability criterion of WP:N and the oh so much more liberal WP:FICT. See also related AfD on Cortana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortana. I seriously hope noone will argue for keeping of this one though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No case made that it is notable enough for an article. Edison 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable Halo-cruft. MER-C 07:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete DumGameCruft MiracleMat 07:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete ne absorbeat eas Tartarus ne cadant in obscurum. Or something like that :-) Guy (Help!) 13:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge I think this would fit in fine over at List of Halo series characters. -- Ben (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong merge There's absolutely no reason not to just throw this back to the characters article. Tartarus isn't notable enough on his own, but he's far more than notable enough to have a couple of paragraphs in the character list. -- Kicking222 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Kicking222. Usually I wouldn't say this do sub-articles, but it's too far along for a keep vote to hold weight. Anyway, Tartarus isn't even split into sub-sections; a merge would be straightforward and no information will be lost. However, it will make the parent article more than just a bit larger. Hmm... --DavidH Oz Au 07:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into the Halo characters list. The content is definitely interesting and useful. I've played the Halo series but I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know from the article. Shrumster 08:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into the List of Halo series characters. For now, Tartarus doesn't have a large enough background, and isn't that notable. After Halo 3 however... Ghetto Gandalf 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Kicking222. The article should probably have never been split off from the list in the first place, if indeed that is the case. — TKD::Talk 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect- If he survived Halo 2 and was going to continue as a character, then maybe, but besides being the final boss level, not much else. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - the article is doubtful to recieve enough sourcing, currently it has none. Fails WP:RS and WP:V, but would fit into the minor list of characters. --Quirex 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Unlikely to have a mention in any third party sources, worth a few sentences along with other minor characters. (Or should I say "keep because he's really pretty"?) Gimmetrow 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect It isn't notable enough to have a separated article. Merge with the characters list. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge I oppose the Cortana delete, but I see no reason per WP:FICT to oppose merging this. Peptuck 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Note that other characters with their own article survived more than one version of the game. --gxti 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect Not enough background info for the character to have it's own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuillOmega0 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).