Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TTN (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 13 September 2008 (Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henchman 800). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/Archivesbox

Shortcuts

The Deletion page contains video game articles and related miscellany currently listed for deletion. Articles for deletion can be found at Today's Deletion Log. This page only transcludes discussions; to nominate a new article for deletion please see the articles for deletion page.

To list deletion debates on this page, transclude the discussion here by inserting {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME}} under 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.

September 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. TravellingCari 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman 800

Henchman 800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, there is no notability established. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, generic enemy with a generic description and generic sub-types. Yawn. Nifboy (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete common enemy in the game without significant coverage in reliable third party sources, thus failing our WP:V policy (if not just our WP:N guideline). Randomran (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial-tastic treatment of generic enemies, no sign of passing WP:N in regards to significant coverage. Someoneanother 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE), the list is trivial, no evidence of notability (WP:N). – sgeureka t•c 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth; Snow'ed in September. seicer | talk | contribs 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Goth

AfDs for this article:
Bella Goth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no way in this world that a proper article could ever be written on her. The in-game allusions to her are just gimmicky and aren't important to the gameplay (what is in The Sims?). – sgeureka t•c 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the page that seems to be the first thing you look for in pages to delete. Smurai Cerberus 14:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth. Nifboy (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of substantial verifiable info. Even the official strategy guide didn't have much to say about her, the Goths are essentially just the default neighbours. Besides, it's simple logic that if there was consensus to delete Mortimer, Bella should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete per recent AfD on Mortimer Goth. MuZemike (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete per above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 no consensus. — Coren (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabreman

Sabreman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is a character spanning more than 20 years of video games. That the character is linked to a series of video games is not a valid reason for deletion. It's like saying we should delete, say, Emma Frost because it's only connected to comics. // Liftarn (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're comparing a chick who has been in well over 200 comics, at least 7 games and 2 animations for the last 30 years to an old man whos 'spanning more than 20 years of video games' consists of 6 games and 2 cameos. I follow your point, but you could use a better example. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete; even though the article does double-duty as a character article and a series article, there doesn't appear to be anything the article can be based on, aside from a handful of plot summaries, some cameos, and some rumors. Nifboy (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ultimate Play the Game About as unconvincing an example of a bona fide character as you can get, in most games he's just 'Bloke B' who happens to have been given a name, as opposed to 'Bloke A' (Jetman). Compare the Knightlore image on the Ultimate Play the Game article to the screenshot of the player-character on Gunfright - spot the difference. One is Sabreman, the other is "Sheriff Quickdraw". The fact that the same character name has repeatedly been used in different games may mean something to the Stamper bros. but it's hardly the basis of an article. The GBA Sabre Wulf is so far removed from the originals as to be scarcely relevant and there's nothing indicating that this version of the character is any more noteworthy than the next. If the racing game does turn out to be more than a rumour then the article can always be reverted back. Someoneanother 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we should keep this article as I will add this source to it. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, sources available don't seem to be sufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't meet our sourcing requirements as seen in WP:GNG. There's one reliable third party source, but all it can do is verify its existence rather than offer anything constructive to verify the article's contents. That said, I would accept a redirect if deletion were deemed inappropriate, as User:Someone another has offered a pretty well-balanced look at this article's merits and problems. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of an easily found source. If there's that, there will be more. Contra TTN, third parties talking about game characters in the context of the game is quite enough; Same for athletes--almost all our sources for footballers talk about them in the context of their football. DGG (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After doing various searches I can find nothing that would indicate this character meets the notability guidelines. When the character is mentioned it is only in reference to the games he appears in, there is nothing to build an article on. The games are notable, this character is not. RMHED (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. ffm 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetman (character)

Jetman (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the character has appeared in a long running comic as well as a series of video games. // Liftarn (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect to the first game he appeared in. Appearing in a number of games doesn't make a character notable enough for his own article, but significant third-party sources do - when they discuss a character's creation, reception and influence. No sign of such sources yet, and if they do in fact exist somewhere, they may as well be incorporated into the game articles first. – sgeureka t•c 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's very little to say here beyond the CRASH (magazine) comic, which can more easily be incorporated into that article. Nifboy (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the character does not meet our sourcing requirements. However, I would not let this AFD prevent someone from creating a Jetman (series) article, to summarize common aspects of the series. Randomran (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this article some time ago, hoping it would get expanded upon. As it hasn't, it's fair game for deletion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a mostly non-notable character with nearly no RWC. Further, to me the concession by the initial author carries significant weight, and it is commendalbe to admit something like that freely. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. ffm 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Daniel Fortesque

Sir Daniel Fortesque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; pure plot, information better suited for the articles on the two games + remake. Nifboy (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, original research, gamecruft. JuJube (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure fictional biography, i.e. plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka t•c 11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete teh fict bio is too large and the aricle lacks RWC. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Space Channel 5. — Coren (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulala

Ulala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games (other than the lawsuit, which is already covered in better detail within the main article), so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Space Channel 5, where all the pertinent information is. Nifboy (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the inability to find reliable third-party sources, thus failing to meet our notability guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Space Channel 5. The series is marginally popular but I don't see a lot of potential for a breakout article. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is my first comment in one of these, so please bear with me, but anyway, I say we should keep this article due to coverage in third party sources, the out of universe information about the design controversy, the nice presentation of the article with an effective use of imagery and organization, and that it concerns a character who has appeared in multiple games including one called Sega Superstars Tennis. Superstars = notable! --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fucking strong keep because, well, she's a video game character. Don't they deserve articles? --TONO459 (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they don't per se. – sgeureka t•c 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some do, some don't. It depends on whether they meet our policies and guidelines. This one, in particular, lacks reliable third-party sources, and fails to meet our notability guideline, which is supported by the broader Wikipedia community. The best way to save it is to find sources that offer significant coverage, enough to write a non-stub article. Randomran (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere into Space Channel 5. Some real-world information (good), but nothing really non-trivial (bad). Not enough for a spinout article. – sgeureka t•c 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Space Channel 5, which isn't really excessively long. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Consensus leans heavily toward delete with the sole keep agreeing the character is not notable enough. Deserving of a link on Pudding (dab) is not a reason to keep. While there is some minor consideration for re-direction, this is not a likely search term due to the name. TravellingCari 01:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pudding (Space Channel 5 character)

Pudding (Space Channel 5 character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bit character about which very little can be said that isn't basically a transcript from the games. Nifboy (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn character --T-rex 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Or Redirect because there is too much info in the first and second paragraph. Ether delete it or if there is a list of Space Channel 5 characters article, put all the info there.--TONO459 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom note regarding lack of RWC. RWC is needed for an article to have staying power. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect - The character is not notable enough to merit its own article, but it at least deserves a link on Pudding (disambiguation). This article should be redirected to Space Channel 5. Neelix (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real world context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. TravellingCari 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura (WARP character)

Laura (WARP character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability independent of the video game series. Without third party reliable sources, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, three different characters sharing similar traits and a first name does not an article make. Nifboy (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the character is would need references from external sources to make it notable. Mrh30 (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 redirect to Heroes of Might and Magic V. MBisanz talk 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agrael

Agrael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character doesn't establish notability independent of the video game. It is just pure plot summary that has no need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 redirect to Gungrave. MBisanz talk 02:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond The Grave

Beyond The Grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the games and anime series. It is covered well enough within those articles, so it doesn't require separate coverage. TTN (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:N, WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Despite his being the primary character, there is not significant coverage on this character in reliable, third-party sources beyond mentions of his role in various plots. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the context, it looks like you dropped a "not" in there. Is that the case? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It's essentially unsourced, and far too long per WP:PLOT. Reyk YO! 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what does that have to do with anything? None of those books have anything to do with this fictional character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing what to do with Beyond The Grave. I am merely noting that there are books that share that title and so perhaps we should be considering having some kind of page that lists all of these books, something like Alexander (disambiguation) as the main Beyond The Grave page and make retitle this article as Beyond The Grave (character) as I am not sure if these books are more encyclopedic (however we define that term for a paperless encyclopedia) than the character and therefore what content would most appropriately be covered by an article titled Beyond The Grave. Clearly something should be, but I am not sure which from these possibilites. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really a possible outcome here. It will either be deleted, kept, merged to another article for the Gungrave series, or redirected to such an article. Completely replacing the article with a disambiguation page isn't something that would normally be done here at all. There are no other articles on Wikipedia this one is being confused with, so it doesn't need one. If there were going to be one, though, that page would be at Beyond the Grave (disambiguation), unless this page were deleted. We aren't just discussing an article titled "Beyond the Grave" but this specific article and its contents. For the books, WP:BK would be their notability guideline, but from the quick checking I did, none would meet those as they are mostly generic type books, unlikely to be best sellers or notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think so long as it is not an outright hoax, it should at worst be redirected as suggested above then. As for the books, so long as some reviews exist, then I imagine we can perhaps cover them in some manner, but please allow me some time to review that notability guideline you link to as well as those links suggested in that other discussion. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a hoax isn't the only reason to delete an article. Articles that fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines (starts at WP:N, but there are also many subject ones like that book one) are subject for deletion as well. As are advertisement type articles, articles that violate copyrights, etc. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy are good reading for learning more about what type of content is subject to deletion and the various types of deletion and the processes for each method.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree that there are/should be other reasons than simply being a hoax (obviously we should also not cover anything that defames or libels someone in a slanted or obviously biased manner, for example), but the sense that I am getting as key is what we can verify in sources is "wikipedic", but again, please allow me a couple days or so to really familiarize myself with these links. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete long plot summary. Gungrave already has two paragraphs of plot summary, and it's easier to add new stuff there than to trim this article down. – sgeureka t•c 09:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the only sources that could be found on google books are either primary sources, or the common phrase "beyond the grave" which don't focus on any specific topic. That's not enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. Randomran (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sourcing, etc. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to somehow redirect this page to Gungrave#Beyond_The_Grave? --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why not. Good idea. MuZemike (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gungrave per above. Can be a plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as mentioned. This could n done without coming here in the first place. DGG (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to which, though? The video game or the anime series? As a random side note, it should be Beyond the Grave, with a small T in the various articles, not with a capital T. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del/merge to main show article After a ridiculously vicious pruning. The NOT PLOT vio there is worse than in the enemy's article, and should be boiled down to a few simple lines. let people watch the show. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 redirect to Gungrave. MBisanz talk 08:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry MacDowell

Harry MacDowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the games and anime series. It is covered well enough within those articles, so it doesn't require separate coverage.. TTN (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- It's essentially unsourced, and far too long per WP:PLOT. Reyk YO! 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim down main antagonist in a popular series (Gungrave). Needs shortening badly. JuJube (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lead and the Game version section into Gungrave (where he isn't listed in the Characters section) and redirect. The rest is UNDUE plot summary. – sgeureka t•c 11:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, not to mention WP:N for having zero (or at most trivial) coverage outside of the series itself. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why not then merge it? If the material is part of the main series article, then WP:NOT#PLOT is averted and WP:N irrelevant. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) But merge where? I looked at this one and Beyond the Grave months ago (pretty sure I'm the one who tagged both with their current tags). One reason I didn't attempt a merge/redirect was because of the blending of the game and anime characters in a single article. Though from what I've scanned. I have to admit, a lot of this one's summary of the anime seems like pure OR and incorrect info. Like the claimed ages...never stated in the series, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rambling, overgrown NOT#PLOT vio. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Non-notable game, crystal ballin' here seicer | talk | contribs 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Nest

Dragon Nest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Developer doesn't meet WP:N, from what I can see - the game may not either. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Crystal balling. The article isn't written like an advertisement, but as there are no reliable sources on which we can report, we are basically functioning as promotion for this game. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Keeper ǀ 76 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBA: Featuring the Life

NBA: Featuring the Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this article is redundant to other existing articles such as NBA 06 and NBA 07. The creator essentially copy info from those articles and paste it here. —Chris! ct 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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 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. MBisanz talk 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario for MegaZeux

Super Mario for MegaZeux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD. Article fails both WP:V (No verifiable, third-party sources are listed that can establish any hint of notability.) and various aspects of WP:NOT, including Wikipedia is not your own web host and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is also a conflict of interest with the creator and main editor of this article, as he/she is also the game's creator (see game's description. MuZemike (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable game. This game was released in June 2008, so it has not been around long enough to become real popular. It isn't a PS3 or Wii either. It fails WP:RS and a Google search returns only eight results. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlicenced copyvio clone of Nintendo game, not notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --T-rex 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game was not released in June 2008., that was an error. It is playable on the Wii and other popular platforms with the use of the program mentioned in the article Teabonesix (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find any reliable 3rd party sources. Dlohcierekim 19:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of Lylat

Shadows of Lylat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An in development fan-game whose only claim to fame is that Nintendo said they wouldn't shut it down. Most of the content isn't even worth including. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

September 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. MBisanz talk 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Super Sluggers Collectible Cards

Mario Super Sluggers Collectible Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply an online game to promote the newest Mario baseball video game. This is an unacceptable split off of Mario Super Sluggers for various reasons. The article is simply a game guide at best, and any relevant content can be fit in a few paragraphs at best on the main article. I've tried explaining this to the editors involved: but they refuse to listen. I've tried redirecting this to the main article, and it just gets reverted. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true - see also Where's the beef?, for example. But I concur that there is no independent notability here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above poster, RobJ1981 is wrong. This information is valuable to hundreds if not thounds of children and adults around the world. He also stated Gamefaqs was not reliable, which I disagree with, people can say that Wikipedia is not reliable in the same manner. Once people who care post good and correct information, it is up to the user to consider if it is reliable or not. This article is not a game guide, it is a resource to a collectible card game from Mario Super Sluggers. Not the/and/or video game, but something else entirely. My question is why does he care so much about this page? does he own it? does he need it? he should just lay off and find some others to harrase. Thank you, Daddio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.185.90 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) — 69.139.185.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. I think MuZemike (talk · contribs) said it best, namely the WP:OR and WP:NOT bits. Doesn't seem like what this project is suited for, especially when there isn't significant discussion in independent reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be covered with a section in the MSS article. Too bad this couldn't have been a simple redirect job without the need for AFD. Pagrashtak 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I note above, we do have some articles on ad campaigns and promotions, but in each such case there is converage of the campaign itself, and the subject's notability is established independently from the product being advertised. That's not the case here, and I'm unclear on why this material cannot be included in the game's main article. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the ad campaign gets the coverage required for notability an encyclopaedia article can be created then. Nuttah (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. BJTalk 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SNES Game Maker

The SNES Game Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Product is currently non-notable. Thought about speedying under a7 but it seems to fall under software category than company/croup Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should say that I did nominate it for speedy but then thought of the possible distinction and replaced it with the AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - There is similar software out there that could be the reason why the software is under development. Similar articales on wikipedia speaks of these similar peaces of software Robert (talk) I nominate to act against deletion, it cannot be deleted for 30 days giving Johnson enough time to appear and edit the articale in order to apply what would be considered undisputed sources. Also, the articale has been deleted twice already and this will be third time, the next time it is posted, it will be posted by Johnson himself due to discovery that the articale is no longer avalible. Information that can be used to contact Mr. Johnson must be found so that I may have time to place it in the articale itself. I want one of you who are for deletion to change your posision based on my proposal. Place a message on my talk page that will lead me to the original author.
    —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) — Roberttheman2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - Uncited, unreleased, non-notable. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete An emerging project is rarely notable. There are no reliable, verifiable sources listed in the article. No assertion of notability. I found none on the internet. Anyone favoring speedy deletion might want to know it has been speedily deleted twice before. A case could be made for speedy deletion as an advert. Dlohcierekim 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switch to strong delete and salt per creator's attempt to buy Wikipedia on article talk page, see User_talk:Roberttheman2008#Talk:The_SNES_game_maker and because this is the third try at deletion. A rather sad attempt at spamming the 'pedia. So unable to meet notability and verifiability that it must use Wikipedia for promotion. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, crystalballing, describes a program that, even if it were out now and verifiable, might not be notable. Different versions have been speedied a few times in the last few days, though AfD is probably a better place, since A7 isn't supposed to apply to software. gnfnrf (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:N. Possibly Speedy Delete via CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted material) depending how the article was "deleted twice already". Equendil Talk 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: I am calling for every single active member to be contacted in an attempt to find any imformation that I can't find as I intend to repost the articale if deleted. It cannot be considered spam if the information is true. Robert (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment You *should* follow the links offered here and read about Wikipedia's policies. Further attempts to recreate an article if deleted through this AfD process would result in speedy deletion. Equendil Talk 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment-- this is user's second !vote. He is AKA "Roberttheman2008". See above. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14
05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: (to Roberttheman2008) Slight clarification on the above: Recreating a previously deleted article will cause the article to be speedy-deleted IF the new article does not address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place. If it's deleted now, and the subject of the article later becomes notable and you can provide reliable, sourced information establishing its notability, it will not be speedy-deleted again. At that time, a new AfD review would be called for if someone wanted to have the article deleted again. Conversely, re-creating a deleted article just for the sake of doing so will not only get it CSD'd, but it may get you blocked for disruptive behavior. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the subject of the article should become notable in the future it would be best if the article were re-created in user space, then a WP:DRV filed for others to discuss whether it actually meets the notability issues discussed during the deletion. Corvus cornixtalk 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm just going by what CSD G4 says - that gives a provision for improving the content in place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely disgusting attempt to spam Wikipedia as evidenced here where the article creator basically tries to bribe Wikipedia into keeping the article. I also believe the editor needs an indef block as he is committing himself to making trouble, regardless of how inane it is (lol me & my pals wil boycot teh wikipedo!) JuJube (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt spamitycruft (or whatever neothingy you want to make up for it).Article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:COI, and any other number of policies and guidelines. As far as I can tell it doesn't pass a single one. Threats to recreate if deleted means it should be salted. The threatmaker can still recreate in userspace and seek approval for moving to mainspace if a remotely encyclopedic article evolves. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — A request for comment for user conduct has been initiated in regard to the situation above. MuZemike (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt per Dlohcierekim. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references available, crystal balling etc. AlexJ (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. BJTalk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2

List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article also fails both WP:N and WP:NOT just as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combine Forces. See WP:SNOW.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is designed exactly the same way and has exactly the same problems as the former:

List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuZemike (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this fails both notability guidelines and verifiability policy in that neither of these two aspects of the Combine have been scrutinised in this level of detail by reliable, secondary sources, and although I imagine The Combine itself has covered by such sources, there's no evidence of independent notability for these spinoffs. Many aspects detail information are of use only to players of the game (hitpoints, weapon damage, entity spawn codes, spawning behaviour, advice on how to defeat enemies, etc), in breach of Wikipedia is not a guide and points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of inappropriate video game content. Likewise, particularly with the technology list, this stuff is pretty indiscriminate, against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, listing things down to a door and a shelf for storing weapons. Large parts of the articles consist of speculation, and it is primarily the result of original research from playing the game. This level of detail is simply not needed, cannot be saved and should be disposed of. Most (ie not the doors and shelves) already exist comfortably and in proper context at Combine Wiki, generally in better forms, so there is no need for a transwiki. -- Sabre (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely fails the WP:N guideline, because a search reveals no reliable third-party sources that cover this subject. Also fails WP:V, because "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Also fails WP:VGSCOPE, because we only allow a WP:CONCISEPLOT rather than a detailed list of every weapon/technology/enemy/etc. in the game. Randomran (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you at least keep the information about Citadel in List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2#The Citadel? Maybe delete the old page and create a Citadel (Half-Life 2)? Unlike the other technology in the article (which can be unnecessary information), It has a big importance in the game and in the game plot. Or maybe it's better to transfer this information about Citadel to City 17? --Kotofei (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree some coverage of it is warranted, although not a separate article, as that would have all the same notability problems here. I'd suggest covering it in Combine (Half-Life) if anywhere, but the information contained on it here is still far too detailed for any encyclopedic coverage of the Citadel. You'd be better off just writing something new about it in either the Combine's article or if you wanted to City 17's article (both articles have their own problems that need to be addressed though, although unlike these two up for AfD they are surmountable) than trying to merge from this version strewn with original research and excessive plot and fictional details. -- Sabre (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to Combine (Half-Life), as this is far too detailed a series of descriptions to even begin to meet WP:VGSCOPE and related guidelines (esp. WP:WAF). Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no redirection. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon-X

Pokemon-X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article, the web comic Pokémon-X, doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article. The page is badly written, and badly laid out, as well as most of the work being done by the comic's author themselves (as user ReconDye). It does not have a neutral point of view, nor any cited sources. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, failing WP:N. The one claim to fame is that it is in the top 100 in some gan poll of web comics, but it is not clear how representative that site is and how strong a claim to notability that is. In addition, the article seems to be written from a positive and uncritical point of view, and based on inside information or on the work itself. It belongs [Bulbapedia, not Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks sources and WP:COI issues don't help. Nifboy (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Garling

Michael Garling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned, foreign language articles do not exist and based entirely upon primary sources. There does not seem to be any reliable sources- probably an A7 candidate, but I don't feel comfortable speedying due to the fact the article, at first glance, doesn't look that bad. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no notability. Some of those listed websites don't exist any more (that says something about notability). The enthusiast's website Final Fantasy Insider is not notable, and because Garling posts content there makes it a primary and unreliable source.--Lester 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the fact that many of the sites are not working anymore it still does not constitute that deleting is the appropriate action as clearly a number of sources provide enough evidence to support the article's claims. From the current sources it can be deduced that Garling is a notable enough character for a Wikipeida page due to his significant contributions to the internet gaming scene. Therefore the article should be kept until further evidence arises. JleeLink (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, the subject has never been mentioned by a single reliable source. Anyone can comment on forums, set up blogs and write for minor websites. Doing so does not make you notable in any way. If it did, I think the majority of us would be notable... J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the core of my social experiment. I noticed that you have articles on actors that have effectively starred in nothing in their lives, people that are completely unknown to select circles and social niches/cliques. Thus, I found this Michael Garling - his articles are read (beknownst/unbeknownst) to 15,000 individuals worldwide daily, and yet because it is an internet videogaming website, he is considered insignificant? Thus, we find Wiki's personality flaws. If the Garling user is deleted, does this not mean that other such D-grade actors should be deleted? Or is it simply because a 'third-party' website has mentioned them once (probably upon their request) that they are allowed to remain?--RobbieMayona (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello everyone, this is Michael Garling. Thankyou for taking the time to write an article based on me User:RobbieMayona, and thankyou to the moderators for your civilised dealing with this matter. I am unsure as to how many third party comments you may want, so I have taken this into my own hands at this point. You will notice in the Final Fantasy Insider section and new paragraph, I have linked to a third party comment from 2006, there are more that I have access to/could find if required. Thankyou for your time.--124.189.64.35 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is the subject of commentary, not simply having the name on it, sadly. They would need to discuss your impact or discuss what you do, or other such joys. THey would also have to be a reliable source, I believe. I must say I'm a bit disappointed that RobbieMayona decided to use you to make a point rather than taking the discussion to the proper forums, namely the notability pages. AfD, IfD, MfD etc are to enforce policy, not set it, so I can't imagine what he thought it would achieve. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Frankly, I'm unsure what he was looking to do either. All I know is, a Wiki article based on me seemed like an interesting move, and as soon as someone tells me I'll be "making a stand", I'm generally there. As you have proved your point, and as I can't find the time to hunt down every single person that's ever discussed my impact, I would say it's time to delete the article. Thankyou for your time everyone! Let's hope User:RobbieMayona is able to see on the same terms and end the argument...--124.189.64.35 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, quite a well-written article, but writing for (now defunct) video game websites doesn't scream "notability". Due to lack of third-party sources on this person, I am forced to conclude he does not meet WP:BIO at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eudemons Online

Eudemons Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game with no independent coverage or interests in said game. Bigbigbigbigbigbackground (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

September 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result of the debate was Delete, talkpage is archived. Keeper ǀ 76 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo/Kirby

Inactive task force under an inactive WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo) that will itself shortly become a task force in itself. There is little or no content on this page in which may warrant keeping around. MuZemike (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete: The task force page can be deleted after the talk page is archived similar to previously deleted/redirected inactive projects: MMO games archive, Neopets archive, Runescape archive.
    This page began as a separate Project, but another MfD merged it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo as a task force. The history for the main page show edits that were mainly cosmetic/maintenance, about a third of which consist of inactive/deletion tagging and bot edits. The main page has no significant history worth keeping, but the talk page has some discussions about sourcing that is worth keeping. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  •  Done talk page archived. MuZemike (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Archived talk page link here. The old page is a redirect now which can also be deleted. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not much history to preserve. -- Suntag (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Suntag. --Izno (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Keeper ǀ 76 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo/WikiForce Megaman List of Members

Memberlist which is part of an inactive task force, which is part of an inactive WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo) that will soon be a task force under Wikipedia: WikiProject Video games. Also, there is already a memberlist at the newly-formed Mega Man task force, making this list completely obsolete. Page has not been updated in nine months. MuZemike (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely redundant. Someoneanother 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since redundant. -- Suntag (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not just redundant, but perplexing. I don't really understand the need for a separate member list for a task force... --Izno (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can be used as one of the features of a task force. See WP:TASKFORCE#Task force content. MuZemike (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you misinterpreted. I think lists of users are fine. I think a subpage for an entire WikiProject is also. I don't think a subpage for a task force is. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not? Cannot task forces gauge who is participating? The guideline suddests it's a common thing for a task force to do. Again look at WP:TASKFORCE and also look at our current task forces as well as those from other WikiProjects such as the Military History WikiProject and tell me what you see in each of them. Keep in mind that the now old WikiProject Nintendo (I mention this because I see an MfD for this in the near future, despite our inheriting of everything from the old WikiProject and that the old WikiProject's page has moved and blanked to reflect the current membership) has had a separate page for a long time, and if by chance we get a bit of participants into our task force (as we have over 800 articles to deal with) it can be necessary. (I will copy-and-paste this in the event the Nintendo Task Force's memberlist page gets MfD'd.) MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again reading WP:TASKFORCE, I see nothing encouraging it [a member list] as a subpage. Only that lists are typical of task forces to produce. Task forces generally don't become large, even when they are of a broad scope. Take for example, the WWI task force. That only has 30 contributors. Would you set aside a subpage for that few? Or how about the WW2 task force? It has over 100 contributors to it, something I don't think even Nintendo (much less Mega Man) could match; yet their task force participation section is not in a subpage of the task force either. This category supports my assertions — while I think your approximation of 800 articles is inappropriately low, I don't think it can muster the number of articles present in that category (15k, plus a few "needing attention"). Taken together, I again say I don't think a task force needs a members list that is a separate subpage of the task force page. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=238221435"