Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Video games
This box: view • talk • edit
Main pages
Main project talk
  Talk page archive talk
Project category talk
Portal talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
  Naming convention talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  Archive talk
  Bot log talk
Cleanup talk
  Archive talk
Peer review talk
  Archive talk
Magazines talk
New! Newsletter talk
  Draft talk
  Current issue talk
Video Game Images talk
Articles
Articles for deletion talk
  Archive talk
New articles talk
Requests talk
Essential articles talk
Featured articles talk
Good articles talk
Task forces
Atari talk
Command & Conquer talk
Devil May Cry talk
New! Gears of War talk
Grand Theft Auto talk
Silent Hill talk
Suikoden talk
StarCraft talk
New! Valve talk
Visual novels talk
Warcraft talk
Shortcuts:
WP:VG/D
WP:CVG/D

This page contains video game articles and miscellany currently listed for deletion. Articles for deletion can be found at Today's Deletion Log.

To list deletion debates on this page, transclude the deletion discussion here by inserting {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME}} at the appropriate day. Add {{subst:VG deletion}} to the debate when listing it here. New entries should be placed at the top of the list, and are sorted by day.

For closed debates, please use {{afdl|article||open date YYYY-MM-DD|close date YYYY-MM-DD|result}} to list debates on this page. If the article has been nominated for deletion before, please use {{afdl|article|article's AfD page|open date (YYYY-MM-DD)|close date (YYYY-MM-DD)|result}} instead. Miscellany nominated for deletion follow the same pattern, but with mfdl instead of afdl. For the complete list of closed debates, see our Deletion Archive.

Contents

June 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] Qore (PlayStation Network)

Qore (PlayStation Network) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is not enough notable information on the service to require an article. All the encyclopaedic information is already on the PlayStation Store page and is a good size. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete already covered better at PlayStation Store. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - all of the relevant information is already (better) covered in PlayStation Store. False information on the Qore page too - I first corrected a sentence that claimed it was presented in 1080p HD (it's 720p) and now I see it being listed as Remote Play capable when it's not. SeanMooney (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Romancing SaGa characters

List of Romancing SaGa characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot and character information that belongs in the Romancing SaGa article. As it asserts zero notability on its own, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roboticizer

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Roboticizer
 Articles for deletion/Roboticizer (2nd nomination)
Roboticizer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded for a lack of notability per WP:N. The prod tag was removed, and so the article comes to AFD. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete cruft with no real world relevance; throw in some WP:OR and you have yourself one for the junk heap. Just don't let it get roboticized. D: JuJube (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsensical article with zero sources which suggests it is not WP:N It may also be WP:OR. Artene50 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable element of fiction, and filled with WP:OR. It is also unsourced, and does not yield many google hits, either. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N (and WP:FICT etc). Is essentially just an article about plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and the lack of sources providing real world info means that's not going to change. Bridies (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story

List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of character information from the game article from which it comes mixed with trivia. It is therefore duplicative and unnnotable on its own and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears to be just game guide content, along with trivia. Relevant content belongs in the main game article (if it's not there already), and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A complete lack of sources. It is a long article with one source. Also is like one huge trivia(which wikipedia discourages), so I say delete.Gears Of War 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless there is a good argument to merge this into the main Star Ocean article. --Ecoleetage (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It was just recently tagged requesting sources; I would give the editor more time to add them. It is certainly not a game guide. There is no information contained in the list how to play the game (i.e. press "x" at point "y" to obtain object "z") It doesn't appear to be trivia to me, but rather explaining the different characters in the game. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of black characters in videogames

List of black characters in videogames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unnecessary unencyclopedic list. Completely OR. Who cares if a video game character is black. The list includes Will Smith ,50 Cent and "Zombies in Resident Evil 5". All put together in a list even though that have nothing to do with each other. This is a collection of unsourced trivia.--Coasttocoast (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete needless list. JJL (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per the well-stated reasons in the nomination. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO, silly inclusion criterion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide, and isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very trivial. We might as well have List of Asian characters in video games or even List of Caucasian characters in video games. The list would be severely unmanageable. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is pure trivia and nothing more. Artene50 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless Tresiden (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as an pointless, indiscriminate, unsourced, and useless list. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - I think the article might fire up certain speculations and is very trivial as well. Kalivd (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Useless list. Though not to be racis but it dosent matter if a character in a video game is black unless it effects that plot of the game. Also it has no refs. Trivia is discouraged on Wikipedia and thats bassically whats this is. Nobody cares about wether a character is black, they care about the gameplay and so fourth. Also if the decisio is to keep in the end, the article should be renamed List of African American charters in video games.Gears Of War 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I wouldn't say it is useless. Perhaps if it was more encylopedic like LGBT characters in video games I would support it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: just saw this comment now, and I fully endorse it. There's a useful, encyclopedic way to tackle this topic and LGBT characters in video games has shown us the way. Let the article's creators follow that lead. In fact, if they began to reform this list, I would change my vote to a simple rename. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I actually think this is an interesting topic, but this list is a totally unencyclopedic and non-notable way to tackle the topic. There's just far too many characters for a single list, and the goal of the encyclopedia is to give a concise overview of a topic rather than provide an exhaustive list. If someone wanted to instead create an article "black representation in video games", I'd support its creation. I'd even help with the research: it's out there and I've seen it. I just need to dig it up. Randomran (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that it is an interesting idea for an article, but the lack of sources makes it seem too trivial. --Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate list, borderline game guide. Seems to be made to make a point. JIP | Talk 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article may be problematic, but how about if someone create an article titled List of Nazi characters in videogames? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steel Halo

Steel Halo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:N to me. SeizureDog (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N. No indication or assertion of notability. Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The creator of this article only edited on this particular subject a few times here and nothing more. He may be a fan. But there should be more given notability. Artene50 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability to satisfy WP:N. Reads like an advertisement and violates WP:NOT#GUIDE as it stands also. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sephiroth, Masterpiece, and Happyme. Fails to meet WP:NOTE. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteDeffinetly fails WP:N. And it list no refrences, at least the creator could have tried to look for refrences, it would be better off with just on ref instead on none.Gears Of War 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — No evidence of notability. macytalk 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] Titans (Crash of the Titans)

Titans (Crash of the Titans) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been tagged with notability and sourcing concerns since October 2007 and tagged for cleanup since May 2008. A prod was removed mid-May stating that these discussions are usually controversial. Since then, the article still fails notability and verifiability. It cites no reliable sources from which to draw information. I would also suggest that it also fails WP:FICT, as notability for the individual characters or character grouping is not demonstrated through adequete sources. Finally, per WP:NOT, this article approaches the content in an in universe perspective and would be more suitable for a gaming wiki.Gazimoff WriteRead 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Gazimoff WriteRead 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now. This depends on the notability of the game, partially. I'm keeping in mind, too, that we're not a game guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list of minor, mostly generic, obstacles from a (marginally notable) video game. Giving an object eyes and legs doesn't necessarily make it a character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as a game-guide. It's tagged already to merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters; that article or Crash of the Titans should receive the character bios of the major characters; the minor characters should probably go. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, nothing more than a list of enemies with excessive detail. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world), and passes What Wikipedia is. Plenty of reader interest and editor efforts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 12:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Specific details of Titans and enemies in the game do not appear to be related to understanding the game's plot or gameplay (the specifics of what Titans are is already described in detail in the main game article); content is all too much GAMEGUIDE details, and I see no way these characters can be talked about outside of one sentence that doesn't go into guide-type specifics. Transwiki content if possible. --MASEM 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even in a worst case scenerio we would merge and redirect this legitimate search term without deletion to Crash of the Titans, but there's no justification for an outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galaxy (Super Mario Galaxy)

Galaxy (Super Mario Galaxy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is basically a half list of levels in Super Mario Galaxies, with some extra game guide info that doesn't really belong on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete ...as per above. Zef (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable gamecruft. Artichoker[talk] 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete full of fancruft. Martarius (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redead

Redead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article solely on a fictional enemy from The Legend of Zelda. This article cannot stand alone as it fails WP:FICT, and Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series covers it more than enough. It also has no sources. Artichoker[talk] 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails the general notability guideline. Nothing makes this particular enemy worth its own article. Note, however, that if there's a list of Zelda enemies with info missing about the Redead, a merge may be more appropriate. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it is not missing information, this link contains all the information on ReDeads that is needed. Artichoker[talk] 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and revert to the redirect from 2007. Not substantive enough for its own article. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect. Andre (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect I must say the first time one of these things shrieked and latched onto me was a memorable moment for sure, but like most minor video-game enemies it's better merged than on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - not notable enough on it's own --T-rex 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - I worked really hard on this article! Plus, I remember when this monster had a very large article, I promise that I will expand it and give a second chance...Who said to delete this anyway? -- User:linkandsonicx-11:53, 10 June 2008
  • Redirect, not notable on its own. JIP | Talk 04:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - *update* I expanded the article big time! And in two days, I can upload photos, so please give it a chance, and check it out - ReDead. Talk 2:04, 11 June 2008
  • Redirect - Please, please give the article a chance...it once did have an article, but I think I deleted it...So, please, give it a chance. Linkandsonicx (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Talk
  • Delete Zef (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ReDeads are popular enemies for Zelda fans. And Octoroks? Or Stalfos? They don't even have their own articles! Its just plain sad! 76.97.95.228 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect - Artichoker, your link does not contain all the info needed. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INFO POSSIBLE! By the way, I didn't play Majora's Mask much, so can someone add some MM info on ReDeads? 76.97.95.228 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, then you thought wrong. Wikipedia should only contain discriminant and notable information, see WP:NOT. And do you know what "redirect" means, because it seems like you are opting for the wrong thing, given your opinion. Artichoker[talk] 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Then, what if I made a article which covers ReDeads, ReDead Knights and Gibdos, called "ReDeads and Gibdos" would you pleeeeease change your mind? Because merging them would made a awesome article. Linkandsonicx (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)talk) 6:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I am concerned everything about enemies is covered in Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. There is simply no reason to make a new article about a couple of enemies that are already described in another article. Artichoker[talk] 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentThey are given a summary, not a full explanation. Plus, the article would be a great resource, especially since it covers every little detail on the monsters. Linkandsonicx (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) linkandsonicx
    • A summary is all that is needed. Once again, please see WP:NOT. Artichoker[talk] 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There is nothing there that says "ReDeads are the most minor enemies in Zelda". Linkandsonicx (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)linkandsonicx
    • I think it would be better if the List of Enemies includes a summary, then it has a link to a full article, depending on how much info the viewer needs. Linkandsonicx (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)linkandsonicx

June 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] Realm of the Dead

Realm of the Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn videogame; no indication of its importance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I find no staff reviews or news articles in both gamespot and ign, only generic entries.--Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you tried looking up magazine issues from around that time? It's usually hard for a commercial game release to get through without getting reviewed by *someone*. DocumentN (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have access to American or European gaming magazines. The game was released on 2006, so I think that it should have more presence in the net. I may have downgraded my Delete to Weak had the game been released in the 90's as the majority of the sources for older games are still in magazines rather than online.--Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a very small article providing little information to the reader, and there aren't many reliable sources to back even this little bit up. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a budget game which is why nobody is falling over themselves to review it, it's very unlikely that there are sources in magazines and there's none emerging from google. Permastub which doesn't establish notability. Someoneanother 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of PlayStation 2 games as one of only 2 sources for the article in question. Not all games are notable and this one definitely isn't notable enough for its own article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Zef (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to List of PlayStation 2 games per Jasynnash2. There's no notability asserted in entry and can't find anything myself to assert notability--Cailil talk 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dragon Quest VIII characters

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete These characters only appeared in one episode, and the article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Dragon Quest wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doubtful sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game and this list is an extension of that notable article. The characters are referenced in the game itself and in the guides that came out for the game. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game, but notability is not inherited. This list of characters should establish its own notability per WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE, but it currently doesn't and hasn't shown any sign of possible improvement for two years. Per WP:V, establishing notability is done through the usage of independent sources, not the game itself or guides published by the game's company (primary sources). Kariteh (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't confuse WP:SPINOUT with WP:ITSA. This in an extension of the article due to size limits. It's not a category of a certain subject per se. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no claim of notability. not a how-to but bordering on being a game guide --T-rex 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but requires major cleanup, possibility moving the main characters section from the main DQ8 page to here (replacing the content presently), and making sure to treat the characters out-of-universe and avoiding plot repetition as much as possible. A list of characters from a game (without notability) is a reasonable supporting article to avoid main article SIZE problems, but it needs to avoid excessive rambling and plot reiteration as this one presently does, as well as issues with overuse of images. --MASEM 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, verifiable, encyclopedic, and notable list). Even if it is duplicatd elsewhere, then we can merge and redirect without deletion in the worst case scenario. Sufficient editor efforts and reader interest as well. Consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia or almanac on characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Clean up with a chainsaw and merge to Dragon Quest VIII. Generally, if you find a bad character list article that isn't hopeless gibberish or "Background characters #1-37", that's going to be your best bet. Both articles are in pretty dire condition anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Generally, this sort of article is the compromise way to go to avoid the clutter of individual articles. when I see them I think there's a chance that people are trying to edit and organize the material in a reasonable manner. DGG (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Valkyrie Profile characters

List of Valkyrie Profile characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot and character sections of the Valkyrie Profile video games. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Valkyrie Profile wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete --SkyWalker (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as most of it seems to be a plot summary(?). BTW, the wiki can be found here. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability shown, and appears to be just game guide content. Transwiki to a relevant Wiki if possible. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Clean up with chainsaw and merge to appropriate game articles. I wouldn't be heartbroken if this were deleted, because it's probably 10% or less useful content by volume, but this could be merged to the articles on the two VP games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solid Runner

Solid Runner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obscure, non-notable video game. Next to nothing for Google hits [1], no reliable sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V.  RGTraynor  11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete It is not a notable video game. We simply cannot have a Wikipedia articles on every video games. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be about learning new things (even about stuff that is completely unfamiliar to an English-speaking audience). If you go to Google Japan instead of the standard Google, you can find more information about the game. I often find that there's more information about Japanese video games on Google Japan than there is on the "regular Google." GVnayR (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is strong evidence reliable print sources exist for every super famicom game released. ~I cannot read Japanese, so it will be hard to search for myself, but I do know this trend. User:Krator (t c) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- I am the creator of this page. While this game may not be notable, neither are pages on many of the games listed on here. We don't try to delete those either. mattiator (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, yes, oftentimes we do when we find that the articles lack reliable sources and the subjects lack notability.  RGTraynor  21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we go by Google Japan, then only 1680 hits are yielded for "ソリッドランナー" (the title of the game). Of these, the majority (I dare say 1650+) are from blog, fan-, or commercial (shops) sites that easily fail WP:RS. Of the remaining potential sites, they are little more than profile pages. I failed to find sites that have information on development or reception. Unless reliable print sources are brought up, I fear looking for online sources is a dead end to keep this article. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: tag this article and give it a little more time. I'm not convinced that any of us Westerners can make proper use of google to find this Japanese game, and I think there's a strong presumption that most super famicom games are notable and have plenty of coverage. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blitz Tech

Blitz Tech (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no independent sources, no relevant Google or Google News hits except their own website. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic weaponry in popular culture

Sonic weaponry in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be just a trivial dumping ground for anything related to Sonic Weaponry. Relevant content should be in the sonic weaponry article only, not in this subpage of clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful with Sonic Weaponry. And make sure Hawkwind's Sonic Attack gets a mention too. --Karenjc
  • Keep a good place to bring the material together.If sssentially every game and what not has it, then frst,it shows that this feature is notable, and ,second, it makes the potential length too long for a merge. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Sonic Weaponry. there're Google Books refs, topic is popular within the society and Wikipedia needs to cover this popularity. I agree that rewriting as some sourced paragraph could be nice, but content must be kept now for that to happen later. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Zef (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Notable element of (sorta) fictional technology, and as DGG puts it above, the abundance of information suggests both notability and lack of suitability for merges elsewhere. Ford MF (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, but don't keep (so merge or just redirect) in any case. This is awful, it's just a list of every time there's a form of attack that has something to do with sound. Some of these aren't even weapons. Ugh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Have sonic weapons really had a significant enough impact on popular culture to warrant an encyclopedia article? Popular does not always mean notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
actually, I think it does. I interpret the guideline as saying that things can be notable even if they are not popular. But in any event, widely used by notable artists is saying a good deal more than "popular." DGG (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] Poptropica

Poptropica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a non notable game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can you please go into more detail about the steps you've taken to make reasonably certain that this article cannot be improved, and that we are best off with not covering this topic rather than covering it in some other way, and the places and methods you've used to search for more sources? --Kizor 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick Google search is comes up with ~44K results. Most of the ones I saw in them were either forums, blogs, or other unreliable(?) sites. Given the results of the above (and that the subject is an online game), it seems that it may not be notable or at least not notable yet. If no reliable sources can be found, the my !vote is delete. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reliable sources - [2], [3],. Corvus cornixtalk 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Problem That first one is just a press release, even if it made its way to another website. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. ivillage might be a little more reliable, but it's questionable. I have no further opinion on this article's notability: it's tough to say. Randomran (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep adequately attested on the web. JJL (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am the author of the article. I revisit the article every couple of days to clean it up and make sure the original context and grammar is upheld. This article references an extremely popular kids game, and kids love to come in and add their own commentary to the article ( hence the occasional poor grammar ). Thank you for the suggestions and article points for reference. I will go into the article and update immediately. Idocartoons (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Article makes no assertion of subject's notability beyond subject's existence. Notoriety and notability are not the same thing. Article fails here, here, and here. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep L0b0t uses "Notability" as a point to delete. A quote from the notability section - "Online games are likely to be notable if they have a particularly large paid or free subscriber base.". Please note Poptropica.com's rating in the independent internet rating company Quantcast[4]. Poptropica.com receives over 3 million unique monthly views, and over 130 million page views [5]. Idocartoons (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The usage data reflects visitors to the website not active players/subscribers (which is what is meant by "...particularly large paid or free subscriber base..."). L0b0t (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Popularity makes something more likely to be notable... but it doesn't change the standard for inclusion: coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. This thing is obviously quite popular. But does it meet the general notability guideline? (Honest question: I'm not sure. Google gives a lot of hits, but it's hard to find the sources that meet the guideline.) Randomran (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Virtual world under Education section. The same press release from Pearson has found its way onto sites such as Reuters, Virtual World News, and CNW[6][7]. Corvus cornix has pointed out one review from iVillage. These are still a bit meager for a full article and might instead help flesh out Virtual world into a better article. If greater number of reliable sources with real-world information can be found, then the article can be spin-out from Virtual world. Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battrick

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Battrick Articles for deletion/Battrick (2nd nomination)
Battrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A browser-based cricket management game with less than 10,000 members and minimal to no reliable sources; of the three cited references, one is a blog, one is a dead link, and the last is a one-paragraph mention on a specialty sports management game website. I see nothing here that helps this pass WP:WEB other than its connection to Hattrick - and if that's the notability, perhaps this should be merged there instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I cannot see (or indeed find) any evidence that this passes WP:WEBand there is an absence of reliable sources; although the article does cite three references on closer inspection they are 1) an announcement about an online Q&A session, 2) a blog and 3) a deadlink. At best this merits a short paragraph in Hattrick Limited nancy (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:WEB. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

June 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] List of video games set in New York City

List of video games set in New York City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of loosely associated topics. As you can see, these games have nothing in common besides at least "somewhat" being based in NYC. Pure trivia, unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

List of video games set in London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. same also for the "London" version Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a notable and reasonable way to do things. It is very much something someone might want to look up, and enough can be said about them to make it more than a category., There should be no problem at all putting in a source to show where each of them is set. DGG (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, verifiable, organized, notable, and encyclopedic list). Plenty of editor and reader interest. Also, note that WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:NOT#INFO. Doesn't warrant an article for such a loosely defined inclusion criteria. As it stands, no sources as well and fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a typical originally-researched list-of-things-with-attribute list. The fact that this list lacks a thesis is a good clue that it's just indiscriminately listing vaguely-related things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is discrmininate though in that it has a clear inclusion criteria as indicated in its title. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The inclusion criteria are so broad and vague that it's including wildly disparate items. It's List of blue things; of course it clearly only includes blue things, but a list of blue things is wildly broad and useless and illustrates no article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That would be a reason for tightening or clarifying the inclusion criteria then, but not for outright deletion. The topic seems notable because of such sources as this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • So we'd need a thesis, then. The link you give doesn't talk about games about New York as a whole, it just talks about a game, and thus has little to do with this article (perhaps it would belong somewhere relevant, like Liberty City or Grand Theft Auto IV?) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • A list of this nature serves a purpose akin to a table of contents, portal, or category. Editors interested in video games set in New York City can come to this article and use it to locate such games for which they might write their own off-wiki research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
              • It's not a table of contents, portals go in the portal namespace, and categories go in the category namespace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate list of trivial facts which someone might someday find interesting. Wikipedia follows off-wiki research, it does not lead it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both as they are 1) HUGELY incomplete 2) don't have any sources to back it up 3) somewhat fancruft-like and 4) looks bac because of formatting.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per (oh wait for it Pumpkin) nominator, MiB, etc... viz, fancruft, not INFO etc.... (Irritating & mindless Pumpkin gainsaying to be filled in below this line). Eusebeus (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both MIB summarizes it quite well, the lack of a good thesis to pass WP:NOT#IINFO. Video games are usually set somewhere, but being set in NYC or London is no more special than being set in Chicago or Los Angeles or my hometown (actually, a setting in my backwater hometown would be more special than NYC). – sgeureka t•c 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable topic and informative (if, at present, incomplete) article. Every bit as useful and keepable as List of films set in New York City (which, incidentally, like this article has and requires no refs at all; the works provide the information here, the same way we don't need a literary critic to source the statement that Anna Karenina is a novel; it just is). Ford MF (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • rejoinder to asserted "reasons: Incomplete? Since when do we delete articles because they are incomplete? or for that matter, "somewhat fancruft-like" (not even fancruft-like!?) or "looks bad because of formatting"? What article here in Wikipedia is not incomplete; what article about anything of popular interest isn't at least a little similar to what a fan might write? and, finally, how many articles here are formatted perfectly? 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Given that this list is discriminate, verifiable, organized, notable, and encyclopedic, it meets the definition of WP:LISTS. Any AfD that mentions Wikipedia:Cruftcruft is an article worth retaining for that reason alone. Alansohn (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: this is blatant original research. But this is a pretty discriminate list: either the game takes place in New York, or it doesn't. I'd like to think that someone can do the hard work of referencing this list, because there's a lot of games that (on uninformed glance) shouldn't even be on this list. We have lists like this for books and television shows. There's nothing wrong with games. Randomran (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soul Reaver

Soul Reaver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot of the games in which the weapon is used. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction. More than sufficient reader interest. Plenty of editors actively working on it. Undeniable verifibility through reliable sources. Any time an article is repeated or duplicated, we merged and redirect without deletion. No reason therefore for outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and DeleteZef (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. DurinsBane87 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote, however, per WP:PERNOMINATOR. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is one thing to engage in discussion with the people who disagree with you, but it is quite another to harass them with this kind of stuff; the user does not act like he thinks it is only a vote, and there is also nothing "illegal" about merging some of this text and deleting the rest, that's what AFD is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is something illegal about it, because according to the GFDL, if we merge anything from one article than we must keep the edit history public and therefore would have to redirect without deletion. "Per nom" has long been considered an argument to avoid and it adds nothing really to a discussion, thus pointing that out to editors is harmless as it encourages them to approach this as a discussion rather than just a list of bold faced stances with no arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Fine, I support my vote by saying there is no proven notability, and that its just plot rehashing. Which is exactly what the nominator said, but I apparently must rewrite it. There it is. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • That's something for the closing administrator to decide. Your heckling is simply rude and does not help your position at all. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Arguing to delete valid articles because a handful of editors don't like it is simply rude and does not help our project at all. AfD is a discussion, not a vote of list of per nom "votes" or subjective "non-notable" votes. We are supposed to engage each other and hold each other accoutable in the discussion to get to an actual conclusion to see whether or not there are any valid reasons to delete and as this article is not a hoax, not a copy vio, not a thesis advancing essay, not a how to, etc. there's no encyclopedic reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Simply because you decide to defend the article does not grant you a high horse to stand on and claim that everyone that wants the article deleted is acting in bad faith. The nominator of this AfD and every other person !voting "delete" is acting in good faith and presenting a genuine set of reasoning for deletion that is backed by consensus, regardless of whatever your views are on the matter. Claiming that their actions are conducted in bad faith is rude and uncivil. And again, the closing administrator decides the value of individual !votes, not you. If someone wants to say "per nom", then so be it. The closing administrator determines the value of such a statement. Argue against the nominator's logic, which this !vote is referring to. And again, this is degenerating into tendentious editing on your part - drop it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Simply wanting to delete articles that a vocal minority wants deleted because in all honesty they just don't like certain articles is being on a high horse if anything. I have no doubt that some in this discussion are indeed acting in good faith, although I do disagree with the validity of many arguments presented. Misleadingly claiming that efforts to engage people in disucssion rather than to just make a list of delete votes is incivil and rude. If we really are going to say that AfD is a discussion and a vote, then we need to engage other editors. Efforts to derail actual discussion by ad hominen attacks on me is degenerating into tendentious editing on your part - please drop it and focus on the actual article under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Accusing me of tendentious editing? Hardly, when there are multiple users on one side and you sitting alone on the other. Anyhow, your diatribe against the deletion policy notwithstanding, you still are the minority. In absence of sufficient opposition, current consensus stands. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a little bit of redundant, and a whole lot of speculation and excessive detail. Nothing here to save; it's all "I played the game and this is what I noticed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant; no reliable sources; seems rather fancrufty. Thetrick (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That is completely false and you know it; no reliable sources have been demonstrated, you know this to be true, so you are choosing to ignore wikipedia policies and it must stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
These nominations of notable topics for deletion should stop if anything. Relable sources have demonstrated notability. Saying that a titular weapon is not notable is simply not accurate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless someone can show otherwise, this weapon is not notable. That is, there are no reliable secondary sources about the weapons that are independent of the game series itself. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm one of the editors working off and on with the Legacy of Kain pages, but the weapon itself has no real-world notability, and while the games and the characters are still going to be cleaned up and such notability established, there is no such hope for this article in particular. As mentioned, notable within the series though it is, all the articles on the games list the same information. The Clawed One (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to the series article Legacy of Kain. The series article needs a rewite to remove unsourced material, as well as a heavy dose of citationing, but would probably benefit from the inclusion of some carefully selected material. I'd reccomend a redirect as Soul Reaver is a likely search term for the game series. Gazimoff WriteRead 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability asserted via non-trivial coverage in reliable verifiable secondary sources, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is disputed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Which is not. Read the discussion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The discussion shows that it is disputed and the fact that editors created and worked on this article in good faith also shows that it lacks consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Or that the editors who created and worked on this in good faith made a good-faith mistake by putting a fanpage in an encyclopedia. We don't keep typos because they were made in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, exactly, we correct the typos, but don't remove the word. Thus, we should keep and improve this article rather than unconstructively delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
              • You're mangling the analogy here. The good-faith mistake was creating an article which cannot be comprehensive or well-sourced. An article which is bad, cannot become anything but bad, and is not a useful merge candidate for anything is a perfect deletion candidate. I'm sorry it means we're destroying someone's work, but sometimes editing means excising the unnecessary and unhelpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                • If the article were bad or had no potential, okay, but an article that is a valid search term ("Soul Reaver" is part of a game's name) and that can be referenced through game guides and magazines (using a game guide or magazine as a source no more makes us a game guide or magazine than citing a scholarly journal makes us a journal rather than an encyclopedia) should be kept or merged in some manner or at least redirected in a fashion that keeps the contribution history public. I see valid rationales to merge and valid rationales to redirect, but I see no reason to outright delete a valid search term. And to be honest it is simply not right that a hald dozen editors here in five days should be able to undo what dozens of IPs and accounts have been working on since 2005. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Delete and redirect works fine. If you can source this with game guides and magazines and have something to say that isn't recapping the plot of the Legacy of Kain series, go ahead and do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                      • If it's a valid redirect, then there's no reason to have to delete on top of it as keeping the contribution history public makes it easier for editors to possibly add sources to the article as they come up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Has received third-party coverage, see Google books refs here and here. More sources may be available, but not all books can easily be previewed online. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    First one is a throwaway mention that doesn't constitute critical coverage - it merely describes what the sword is in the game. Next source doesn't even mention the sword save the hack you use to acquire it, which doesn't contribute any notability. The only other books I see in the last one are the strategy guides, which are not independent of the topic, and cannot be used to establish notability. Practically all the items in that search are likely pointing to the game rather than the sword in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    If you used those references to somehow improve this article, I would be impressed and possibly convinced to change my mind. However, I cannot see how they could be used to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. There are no sources to demonstrate notability of this weapon, or that this article is not OR. Fails WP:PLOT (which, I know is undergoing discussion right now) in a massive way. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If we should redirect, there's no reason to delete as well, especially for a verfiable article that represents unoriginal research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
How do I know it's not original research? The external links all seem to be fansites, so don't satisfy reliable sources. Other than your word (or those of other editors), what is my assurance? There's no sources given, no assertion of notability, the references suggested above aren't useful for the reasons that Sephiroth BCR gives, so there is a significant absence of tangible evidence for notability and verifiability. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in the Animal Crossing series

List of characters in the Animal Crossing series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is a repetition of the character sections of the two Animal crossing game articles and the film. As such, it is duplicative, has no real content, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Transwiki to an Animal Crossing wiki if needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Virek (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The characters are largely interchangeable ciphers, and share one of four pools of dialogue. I thought I AFDed this a long time ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete it used to be an alright article until information was repeatedly reduced to the point where there is barely anything left. It has also become a target for all kinds of crap. Delete, delete, delete. --.:Alex:. 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I noticed that notability is hard to apply to lists as being discussed in the notability discussion guidelines. Spinout reasons alone suggest this is too big for Animal Crossing. Thus can't be taken on its own merits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's easy, however, to apply in this case. Most of these characters have five lines of dialogue or less, and are generic quest-givers or shopkeepers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I like this page and don't delete it because it has use. Banana7070 825, 9 June 2008 — Banana7070 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"I like it" isn't a valid keep reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of these are one-dimensional, and as a result no reliable, third-party sources exist or will ever exist. The characters that have actual character (such as Tom Nook) are few enough to be covered in Animal Crossing (series) since they appear in all the games anyway. GarrettTalk 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the grand majority of characters are really unimportant, and shouldn't be included; after that, the actual characters can be covered at Animal Crossing (series). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - exactly per nom. Fin©™ 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA V

GTA V (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure speculation about a video game, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Previous game only came out within the last month. TN‑X-Man 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series) (ideally to a section about future games), fully protect this one. I suspect we'll otherwise fall into the create/delete cycle if there isn't something there, but nowhere close enough to justify an article at this point. --MASEM 03:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - per Masem --T-rex 03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL, too soon to call considering that Grand Theft Auto IV only came out on April 29. Wait a while, there is no deadline to Wikipedia Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect GTA 4 has just been released. There is no info regarding GTA 5. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect from recreation. Do not redirect, there is no reasonable place to redirect this to as the game isn't even in production yet. JBsupreme (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but Masem had an excellent point about falling into a create/delete cycle, as this is exactly what happened with GTA IV way before the game was announced (before conception even I think) and I have no doubt in my mind that this will happen again. --.:Alex:. 16:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, based on my experience with the guitar hero series, once there's a mention of this by a reasonable source, people are going to try to create it if it's not there. Obviously I wouldn't recommend GTA VI, PlayStation 4, or the like since there's no sourceable reliable mentions. --MASEM 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll leave it to the closing administrator's judgment. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. GTA V is going to be awesome though. Fin©™ 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 7 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] From The Pavilion

From The Pavilion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Online cricket management game. Questionable notability, likely COI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have 2 independant sources for From the pavilion, according to "nawlinwiki", WP:V and WP:RS thats what i need.

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.fromthepavilion.org http://www.smgnews.com/index.php/games

Also, there is no conflict of interest as i dont stand to make any money from the site, so im not sure wat the go is there....

Sully89 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Sully89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why isnt it notable? WP:V and WP:RS say that 2 third paty sources are adequate. i have those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully89 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between proving that something exists and showing that it is notable. If you read WP:WEB you will see that it requires the content to have been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". nancy (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.fromthepavilion.org shows why it is notable. Thats an independant third party website which values the dollar value and analyses the trffic of a website. also www.smgnews.com is a website dedicated to sport management games and mentions FTP several times, like this interview with the creator, http://www.smgnews.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-Top_Stories/7-FTP_Beta. If other cricket games like "Battrick" have a their own page, wat else do you need to establish that this is a notable website? Sully89 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sully89. Whilst I admire your passion on this topic, none of your arguments (so far) have basis in policy or Wikipedia guidelines. If you have not already I would urge you to read the notability requirements for web content and also the essay Other stuff exists. nancy (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the sources presented are not notable in their own right (and the one about the web traffic is underwhelming, to say the least). A search indicates that no solid reliable sources have reported on the game. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Well then can you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battrick and tell me why the referance there are different from the ones on FTP. FTP has a traffic analysis and 2 articles from www.smgews.com, Battrick has 2 articles from www.smgnews.com and an article on sport management games in general, i cant see a difference from article to article in notability

58.108.107.156 (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — 58.108.107.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While this is a case of other things exist, I'll note thatBattrick looks like it should be gone to me, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battrick closed as no consensus. It's also part of Hattrick, and there seems to be support for its existence, along with some small coverage of it. I personally think it's not notable, but consensus states Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So if Battrick gets its own indiviual article with the same degree of notability and nearly identical website referances, why cant FTP? Also, if you note the second to final point on the Battrick deletion discussion, "Keep, it seems to meet similar criteria as another game Hattrick which was voted to be kept here albeit this has a smaller userbase"

58.108.107.156 (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit where I said I think the other one's not notable either? Battrick is an offshoot of Hattrick, which gives it a bit of hang-on notability despite the links. Honestly, I think the lot should be dropped as non-notable, but I'm one opinion of many. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And we'll see what the opinion is on Battrick: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battrick (2nd nomination). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Only thing is, its a different issue since Battrick dont have any acceptable referances and FTP does.

58.108.107.156 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

um... it does? The sources here are all non-notable, and are quite similar to those available for Battrick. Anyhow, last comment from me; I suggest finding good reliable sources quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In what is this article not notable? Given thats a relatively new online you are unlikely to find many sources. It is notable based on that fact it is competitor to Battrick and other online sport games such as Hattrick, Footstar, Sokker etc - of which all have articles in wikipedia. Also it is notable based on the fact that it is unique compared to other online games, in terms of the gameplay itself. It is also notable based on the fact that more than 1000 users play the game now. You are basically claiming that Battrick isnt notable..but somehow it is because its linked with Hattrick..in what way is Hattrick notable? - In that same way FTP is also notable. Anyhow - if you can tell us in what way it is not notable..maybe we can then understand the argument that you present. Currently your reasoning does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescoopercronk (talk • contribs) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Jamescoopercronk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - this one actually has validity, but past that, there's no non-trivial reception or coverage that would demonstrate notability to satisfy WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

June 6 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games

I am proposing a deletion of this WikiProject and all related subpages. This project has remained inactive for an extrodinary amount of time. The last actual project related edit was May 2007, and many parts of this project have been dissolved. More bureaucracy has been created than necessary for the scope of this project.

Speaking of scope, the project primarily focuses on a genre and as User:Gazimoff wisely mentioned on the talk page of this project (in which we were discussing the inactivity of the project) as games in general develop more online capabilities and the MMO genre becomes increasingly popular, the overlap between this project and WikiProject Video Games becomes larger. The project is not really suitible for a taskforce under WP:VG either, because as I said before it is based around a genre of which it's scope is a wildcard and could encompass any possible number of articles. The distinction becomes blurred.

I also propose that the taskforces of this project are also deleted for similar concerns of inactivity and lack of participation. Any that has a consensus against deletion should be incorporated into WikiProject Video games. .:Alex:. 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. .:Alex:. 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - May I propose we don't do some kind of vote but instead ask User:Greeves? User:Krator (t c) 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as inactive We normally just tag inactive projects with {{inactive}} and keep them for their histories. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - That is normally what we do. Atm, that is how it currently exists; however, we're moving to clean up the Video-game related Wikiprojects and deleting or redirecting the ones which are truly inactive is (we feel) better for the health of the project, as it centralizes both discussion and style guidelines. It also makes VG easier to maintain. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Then redirect them. Deleting the pages removes editor contribution history, which includes discussion and a record of what they did at the time. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WP:VG, following the work at Inactive Project Cleanup. This project did achieve some good work, but in order to preserve history and promote easy navigation for new editors, it should be redirected to the parent project. Gazimoff WriteRead 08:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question But what about the subpages, would we redirect all of them as well? That is my main concern, not so much the index page for the project, but all of it's subpages. --.:Alex:. 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Last time we had a Project with many subpages (Warcraft), we deleted the subpages and redirected the project's page to its new task force page, which is how I support dealing with this one. My only qualm is that the task force of MU*, which claims to still be active. I've left a note on their talk page, and plan to do the same on the other task force pages. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepRedirect But I'll withdraw my opposition to TF'ing it if the MUD TF is moved intact to be a TF of VG as well--it fits there just as well as under MMO. Yes, MUD TF is active, although at a rather low level. Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy with moving the MUD TF to WP:VG - it promotes centralised discussion, which is what this project cleanup is all about. Gazimoff WriteRead 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I also agree with incorporating the MUD TF within WP:VG. --.:Alex:. 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine by me, then. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as inactive - I have become inactive in this project and although not all the task forces need to be kept as some of them were never active in the first place, the project as a whole should stay. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect main and main talk pages to WP:VG and WT:VG, move TF MU* to a subpage of WP:VG, and delete everything else. What purpose does the project as a whole serve except to decentralize discussion for video game editors? Obviously, the editor will see the "inactive sign", but then the editor needs to figure out where to go from there. Further, I don't see it useful as a Video game task force, since it has such a large scope. Everything from Counter-Strike to World of Warcraft to the original MUDs to (even) various RTS games... It is difficult to separate the difference between "MMO" and "video game" these days. --Izno (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Like the Dragon Quest project, this project has been largely inactive. Though the scope is sufficient to be a project, the lack of activity and improvement in related articles makes me think this would be better served as smaller task forces under the VG project. Such task forces could pull resources from the VG project as well as recruit interested members.
    Regarding the task forces currently under this project, I'd say the only one that should be carried over is MU*. The Neopets and Runescape have been inactive for a long time and the Neopets did not accumulate any noteworthy history. If history must be preserved, then redirect them both to WP:VG. But I think at the very least Neopets can be deleted with no problems. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

June 4 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] Eternal Wars

Eternal Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no references independent or otherwise (WP:V). Web search shows the usual bevy of directory entries and forum discussion; nothing to satisfy notability guidelines. As a browser-based game it may qualify for speedy A7, but I wanted to give it a chance here. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A search turns up no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, just the myriad listing sites and forum posts. Someoneanother 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
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 delete. Wizardman 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hakkyokuseiken

Hakkyokuseiken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional fighting style from a video game series. Fails WP:Note and WP:RS...it caught my attention as the author started it with the fict tag at the top...but it doesn't show as a recreation in the logs. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable fictional fighting style. JIP | Talk 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (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.

[edit] SoccerProject

SoccerProject (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable  Chzz  ►  03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable online game. JIP | Talk 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to satisfy WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Although it may not quite be notable, it is a good article with appropriate infobox and such. There are 11 inline refs, which is decent for an article of it's size.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone just check out the policy of these foreign language news sites? These references might be from reliable, third-party publications, and therefore this article would be notable. But since I don't read dutch, I can't tell. Randomran (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

[edit] Geography in the Suikoden series

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Geography in the Suikoden series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged. The individual things treated there are not appropriate for full articles, and this is a reasonable place to put them. In practice this is an arrangement of material, not really viewed separately. I find it really ironic that given all the debating on fiction, there isnt yet complete acceptance of the middle way of handling things. DGG (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Problem I agree these are not appropriate for full articles. So how does putting multiple non-notable items together allow them to pass the WP:GNG? Randomran (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The same way any notable article can be broken down into numerous non-notable components. Ford MF (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Right, but where are the reliable and independent sources to show that this article is notable? Randomran (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no non-trivial coverage reliable verifiable secondary sources present to establish notability. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. We don't need a whole article on a list of game locations that the reader doesn't need to know to understand the game. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/Cleanup with a preference to merge/redirect (to Suikoden) if immediatism prevails and this article is found wanting. No, this article isn't close to what it should eventually be, as it's entirely too list heavy at the moment without enough real world context. But just because real world context is annoying to get at requiring Japanese translation doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it'll just be slow going. This is a single article for the setting of an ~8 game or so series with various spinoffs that viable development information has already been found in some other articles; it can be given time. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If the game is notable, then keep; if the game is not notable, then delete. (By the way, Second Life does not seem to have its own geography article, and Second Life is notable.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the game and series are notable. See Suikoden (video game) and Suikoden. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The game is notable, but its geography is not. Notability is measured against the general notability guideline which requires coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Against this standard, the article fails. (If other articles fail too, that's irrelevant right now. Articles will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.) Randomran (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hence I made a neutral comment, which does not state a position for delete or keep - informing an editor that the series and game are in fact notable. (Quick edit: It appears I put my comment under the wrong person, which may have prompted your response, I'm moving to the right location) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. My comment wasn't directed at you per se, but at the main comment: that it doesn't entirely matter if the game itself is notable. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not follow the WP:Writing about fiction guidelines, or WP:Notability guidelines, and I don't see how the article could be altered to adhere to them. Interested contributors may wish to transwiki to a gaming-specific encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. It could be altered to something closer to Ivalice or World of Final Fantasy VIII, which are both good articles. It will undoubtedly take time and research, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline.
Note to closer: If some measure of good faith is being looked for, I think a rename to "World of Suikoden" and possibly some additional merging / reworking could certainly be done to improve the article, and I'd be willing to give that a shot. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. My faculties and schedule being what they are at the moment, I am forced to just add a warm body for this side and note my support for DGG. This is an arrangement of material, a valuable and often vital feature that tends to go unnoticed in favor of acronyms with WP: in front of them when matters are being wrangled. A further thank-you to SnowFire. Great big articulate argument coming when cited limitations permit. --Kizor 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as I would have to think that these books can be used to better reference the article and serve as reliable sources. Plus, clear reader/editor interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Problem: those are primary and first-party sources such as gameguides and novels. These can be helpful references to fill in factual gaps. But they can't show that this "geography" is notable. This topic has no third-party, secondary sources. That's why this article is up for AFD. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per LGRC. This should be doable as a topic. Mangojuicetalk 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No notability asserted through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. This is entirely OR, or based on non-reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability, no demonstration of RS. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kizor. This has merit. User:Krator (t c) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. This is the right thing to have here. No objection to a rename to "world of...." Hobit (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep also per DGG, seems like an eminently reasonable way to proceed with these type of fictional elements. RMHED (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone's favorite wikimachine, DGG (why do I see this guy all over the place? does he leave the house ever?). Ford MF (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article totally consists of in-universe material without any real-world information on its development or reception. It is simply a list of locations, indiscriminate in regards to even in-game notability. Wikipedia is neither a travel guide nor an indiscriminate repository of information. Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can those people !voting keep provide some suggestions as to where to find sourcing for this information? Corvus cornixtalk 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Published video game magazines could work as reliable secondary sources and published video game strategy books (citing these makes us no more a guide than citing the New York Times makes us a newspaper) can work as reliable primary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that these published video game magazines don't give any significant coverage to the geography of the Suikoden series. Randomran (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
They give significant enough for coverage on Wikipedia and from which we can reference an article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen them? If you can add those sources, then I'll gladly withdraw the AFD. Randomran (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Use the link above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Remaining neutral, however I did want to comment that The amazon link posted by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles points to gameguides, art books and some books that have the title "Suikoden" but are otherwise unrelated. I interpreted Corvus cornix's request for sources as one for explicitly cited sources. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Citing these sources no more makes us what they are than citing a scholarly journal makes us a journal rather than an encyclopedia. One way of going about finding more in the way of secondary source referenced I think could be to try variations of the article title with the name of a reputable game magazine, i.e. [8] and then use what we find in these secondary references and combine it with published books on Amazon.com to balance the in and out of universe coverage. I'll start revising the article myself accordingly. So, please take note of changes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Randomran is asking for sources (by which I presume he means third-party sources - plenty of first-party resources for parts from the games themselves); there are a variety of magazine interviews in Japanese gaming magazines that I've seen used for information on some other Suikoden websites as far as development information, and English-language game/manga reviews for reception. Now, I will agree that Geography might well be too narrow a scope, which is why - if this article is seen as basically salvageable - I would be in favor of moving it to "World of Suikoden" and merging information in. That said, even at worst, this can ultimately be a Summary Style fork of information that is common to an entire franchise and best placed in one spot, though I think that enough sources do exist that that won't have to be fallen back upon in the long run. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, etc., so even if it takes awhile for this to appear, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:V is a policy, however, and if there is no verifiable evidence for the claims made in the article, it has to be removed. Corvus cornixtalk 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is definitely not on a deadline. But if the sources don't exist, then it's just not notable. If you really honestly believe the third party sources exist (e.g.: not game guides, instruction manuals, or novels), I'm willing to postpone this AFD (rather than simply ending up in no consensus). But if we postpone and there's no references added, it's safe to assume that this isn't notable IMO. That's not a deadline. That's just drawing a pretty safe conclusion based on the evidence. Honestly, are you sure there are actual references out there? Randomran (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed

Languages