Archives

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2010 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2009 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2008 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2007 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2006 December November October September August July June May April 2005 September August July May

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk
Archives Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177
Guidelines Manual of Style talk Article naming talk Sources talk Search engine Templates Wikidata Guide
Departments Assessment Reference library talk Newsletter talk Current issue Draft
Articles Article alerts Deletion discussions Essential articles New articles Popular pages Vital articles Recognized content Good content Featured content Requested articles
Task forces Esports talk Indie Nintendo talk Sega talk Video game characters talk Visual novels talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk List of active editors
Project watchlist view talk changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Video games. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

See also Games-related deletions.

DarkwebSTREAMER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A year on from the last AfD and this game has still not been released. No one can play it and consequently every review of the game fails on the independence criterion. This is a software WP:NPRODUCT and Wikipedia is advertising unreleased software. WP:SIRS pertains and early access reviews cannot be independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Products, and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is clearly passed. Notability does not hinge on whether a game has been released; because Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, but a recorder of facts, and unreleased games can still have things about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of third party sourcing discussing it in detail already in the article. Meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No WP:SIGCOV found. Taabii (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Maharashtra. Taabii (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – none of the sources is reliable and independent and secondary, and there is no significant coverage of the person. The awards he has won are not notable, and there is no actual claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources like Financial Express, Times of India, and Hindustan Times (excluding the Mother's Day one, which satisfies WP:RSNOI's dogwhistles for advertorials) clearly satisfy GNG. TOI is (unfortunately) one of the best sources in India, and its concern at RSP is because their paid content's labeling is not immediately obvious; the source cited in the article that features Dynamo does not seem to have the paid disclosure and has clear neutral tone and byline, so I believe it is not an advertorial. I also doubt Bonadea's claim that the awards are not notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Aaron Liu, for your thoughtful assessment. I appreciate your detailed breakdown of the sources. Based on previous feedback, I have worked on improving the article by adding more independent and reliable sources and ensuring a neutral tone to address concerns about notability.

  I have now included sources such as Inside Sports India, FirstPostz, Sportskeeda, Hindustan Times, an official X post by the Government, and an official post by the PUBG Mobile YouTube channel. These further establish significant coverage of Dynamo Gaming from reputable media outlets and official sources.

  Regarding the awards, I have tried to verify their notability and coverage—if you have any recommendations for strengthening this section, I’d be happy to refine it further. Sarthak14331 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the sources you added help notability. Interviews aren't secondary, InsideSports looks sketchy and has very little information and thus no significant coverage, the government is a good source for that claim but does not provide significant coverage, PUBG mobile has a financial interest in promoting itself and thus isn't really secondary, and SportsKeeda is completely user-generated with little editorial credibility. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your feedback, Aaron Liu. I understand the concerns regarding the nature of the sources, and I appreciate the clarification on what qualifies as significant coverage.

  I will look into adding more independent and in-depth sources that provide substantial coverage rather than just passing mentions or interviews. Based on your concerns, I will remove Sportskeeda and InsideSports as they do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. If you have any recommendations for reliable sources that could help establish notability, I’d be grateful for the guidance.

  Regarding the government source, while it may not provide significant coverage on its own, it does help verify certain claims. I’ll also review the other sources and see if there are better alternatives that align with Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable secondary sources.

  Thanks again for your time and insights—I’ll work on improving the article accordingly. Sarthak14331 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Morgado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP article about a voice actor that appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I've been unable to find any significant coverage (let alone in independent reliable sources.) Refs are only mentions among cast lists for multiple programs, this short interview on a user-generated fansite that is not about the actor, and this confirmation that his name was included as a foley artist in the list of names for a sound editing Emmy nomination for a tv show. Still doesn't appear to meet notability criteria as found in the previous AFD deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Inherited notability from his roles and most of listed sources are unreliable or possibly user generated. MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeoFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sourcing is mixed at best. I don't think this would've made it through AfC. Even with a major cleanup and links to secondary sources, GeoFS is only really ever included in "top x flight simulator games" pieces, and even then with very varying levels of depth and reputable coverage. guninvalid (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Aviationwikiflight @Mybirthday647 @Xavier Tassin guninvalid (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User "Xavier Tassin", pinged here, is an homonym (likely an impostor as their edits show only some form of vandalism). It would have been interesting to ping more active and/or historical editors in order to broaden the views on this AfD. xtassin (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of GeoFS I can only admit the lack of sources and references but would be very sad to see GeoFS removed from Wikipedia: this article has been around since April 2013 and constantly updated, with various levels of maturity, accuracy and academism, but with regularity and goodwill. I believe that, with some work and research from a seasoned editor, the article could be made clean, informative and help GeoFS users and the more general flight simulation community (where GeoFS has made a small, quiet but definitive place) by providing some history, context and information about the software. GeoFS community is made of mostly young users, gathered around social networks which may explain the enthusiastic but variable editorial quality and perhaps lack of traditional sources. I will just provide here a few more "serious" and secondary sources if that may be of any help.

https://cesium.com/blog/2021/12/06/geofs-is-a-flight-simulator-that-showcases-global-satellite/

http://navigraph.com/blog/geofs-simbrief

https://www.aerobility.com/virtual-aviation-experience

https://www.helisimmer.com/articles/simming-browser-geo-fs

https://flightsimweekend.com/exhibitors/

https://www.flightsimshow.com/

https://www.aero-news.net/FullsizeImage.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=4428FF8F-7F87-43B2-AA7F-4D41D54C0696

Some older sources which were once used in this article:

https://www.cesium.com/blog/2017/11/16/gefs/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016c19g (only accessible in the UK I believe - this is quite old now)

https://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2012/04/the_unofficial_google_earth_flight.html

Video reviews if that can ever be considered a reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0XzMTj1RM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWQT3F5XSYY Candide (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of these sources is borderline in some way. Every source listed is either a WP:BLOG entry or WP:SELFPUB or WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. I would also hate to see this article be deleted, but in its current form it just isn't Wikipedia-worthy.guninvalid (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Wikipedia lingo and processes but as far as my understanding goes, I can admit WP:BLOG or WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE but would refute any of the abovementioned sources to be WP:SELFPUB. My feeling so far is that you (too) quickly made up your mind on the matter after making some rapid, successive edits, some of them not showing a full understanding of the subject (GeoFS has not been running on Google Earth for about 10 years now) which undermined the essence of the subject: an accessible alternative to major flight simulation software as a rare occurrence of a web based application. I understand that your focus is now on the lack of sources, which I acknowledged. But I, as a naïve Wikipedia user, and just within the near flight simulation category, can point to several other articles with about the same level of source quality, none of them being challenged for that. I hope you understand, then, why I question this deletion. I still believe this article can bring value to Wikipedia and to the community as a whole if properly edited and can only regret that no other, more informed, experienced or just alternative opinion can be cast on this issue. Yet again, my knowledge of Wikipedia is too limited to bring the defense of this article further so from this point, I will simply rely on the way it works and has ever been working. Do as you must. xtassin (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with you that I would hate to see this article deleted. But information on Wikipedia needs to be WP: VERIFIABLE, and it can't be verifiable without proper sourcing. I'm not able to find anything usable. Hopefully someone with more experience can try their hand at it. As for my edits, I deleted most of the information because almost none of it is verifiable from sourcing. The development section in particular was based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, i.e. the GeoFS blog and Tassin yourself. guninvalid (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about GeoFS appeared to be OK for the creation of the article and 12 years of presence on Wikipedia. Please, next time and just before you elect for deletion an article you would hate to see deleted, especially when it is about a 15 years old, single maintainer project, carefully weigh in all the consequences this may have. As an editor, you do and must have a moral responsibility when taking such a quick and radical decision especially when "being borderline" is involved and other warnings, propositions for help or any other route could have been taken. xtassin (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Most of the sources are lists of flight simulators, most being about the best or "must-try" ones, while one is about 8 games similar to...Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024? Either work together and find better sources about the game, or delete the article. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 23:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you just had a look at the list of extra sources I provided? xtassin (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile (Mortal Kombat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Here's a weird one, but I do feel that this article fails notability, but I feel a need to explain why. While there are sources that discuss Reptile, reception from these sources fall into two categories: he was the first hidden character in a Mortal Kombat title, setting a tone for later games, and that he was featured in many games. A big problem in that regard then is repetition and what you can exactly say about a character, on par with the previous flood of "Top Ten Babes" reception that could be boiled down to "this character is sexy". Digging through books and Google Scholar presents similar: Reptile is mentioned primarily in the scope of his easter egg and no discussion of its impact beyond later secret characters in MK.

During the last AfD, four sources of SIGCOV were also presented, and I want address these here through a source analysis: Den of Geek, GamesRadar+, CBR, and Dualshockers. Of these, the first three are retellings of the character's plot progression: they don't offer reception on the character in a tangible sense, and are mainly useful as secondary sources. Past AfD discussions have shown this is not enough to hold up an article for notability, you need some actual reception from a reliable secondary source discussing their thoughts on the subject. Otherwise we'd have a lot more Pokemon flooding the site. Ultimately to boot these articles were done on most Mortal Kombat characters, and give no indication of particular importance beyond "they were in MK".

The last one, Dualshockers, does offer some reception, and there's a similar article discussing the Mortal Kombat 1 version of the character from the same source. The downside is they're both from the same font, and while I would count Dualshockers as viable, they're still Valnet which is a moment of pause for some.

So the Reader's Digest version of this is that fundamentally we have next to no real discussion for him, certainly not enough to hold up an entire article under current standards. Reptile's always been barely a character, and he can fit well into the list to explain his importance and help the reader grasp why he mattered in the scope of Mortal Kombat. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. While I appreciate the very detailed explanation, the fact remains that retellings of the character's plot progression are transformative, making the listed sources secondary as properly assessed last time. The fact that 3 RS'es say essentially the same thing affects DUE, but not N. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again though, the issue is that they are not saying something about the character, simply retelling the plot. Similar has been raised in the past (for example Valnet sources for Sword Art: Online characters, with the consensus being there that that wasn't enough to establish notability (nevermind the usual Valnet complaints).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What's frustrating about the Valnet situation is that their sites are the only ones to give lesser Mortal Kombat characters any type of extensive coverage. The respect that MK once commanded has eroded in the NRS era. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Policies are not consistently applied in Wikipedia? In other news, water is wet. :-) Plot summary is transformative, that makes it secondary. Whether it's significant is a different question. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the sources show this is notable enough for a standalone page and that was demonstrated more than clearly during the first AFD. -Mushy Yank. 17:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per JClemens. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge The detail in some of these gave me a bit of pause, but I do have to concur with the nom, after a thorough read of the listed sources, that the bulk of the info is plot details. You can probably squeeze a bit of light Reception out of it, but the amount of Reception, coupled with the existing dev info, can easily slot into Characters of the Mortal Kombat series. It also doesn't help that two of the above sources are Valnet sources, which do not qualify for notability. I don't see much of a need for an individual article here, but if any further SIGCOV turns up, ping me and I'd be willing to reconsider my vote. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep for now. Can't believe it's already been two years since the previous nom. KFM has definitely made some solid points, but I'll do some snooping around myself for any more coverage and then change my vote if needed. Regardless of anyone's opinion about his reception, the section itself is an undisputed wreck. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per the sources provided in the previous AFD. Also, here's a source that goes a little in Reptile's history as a hidden battle. MoonJet (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MoonJet: Just pointing out, this says nothing really different than the other sources that are already there discussing it, just without the reception aspect. Is really all we have a bunch of repetition on two fronts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Toys 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Rationale: Non-notable per WP:GNG for a shareware re-release of a game that lacks an article. I think it seems to be shareware that does pop up in odd sources and cover discs, but lacks substantial coverage and review content to justify an article about it.

Source analysis: Relies mostly on primary sources [1], user-generated blogs [2] or game databases [3][4][5]. A PC Gamer article ([6]) seems promising, but the content reveals the writer has not played the game, relying on the site's description to describe it, and is expressing bemusement at the archaic method of distribution of its rerelease. Best coverage seems to be in a Czech magazine website of unknown reliability [7].

Other searches: Trivial mention on Games Industry as part of a publisher background [8]. Internet Archive search found one catalogue listing describing the game ([9]) and one Russian review ([10]) although the latter doesn't really describe or express much of an opinion of the game other than calling it a funny parody of Wolfenstein. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge/redirect into Wolfenstein_3D#Legacy. Btw, Tibo Software's website is still online. IgelRM (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps redirect to WinG, the library it uses. 2604:3D09:8C77:A500:595:B86:B208:2639 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I would be open to a merge target, but cluttering up an article about a different (and much more notable) game is the wrong move. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only sources in article are Navi.gg, ESL, (both of which are not independent of the subject), and HLTV (unreliable per WP:VGRS). A WP:BEFORE search does not find anything of substance either. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Ukraine. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you search Ukrainian language sources? The player is Ukrainian, Counter-strike is pretty big there, so I'd be surprised if there's wasn't some level of coverage since he's been on the roster of two-major winning rosters. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not found any. None of the ones over at the uk-wiki appear that they would hold up to our standards for reliability either. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources from isport.ua and ua.tribuna.com, but I am unsure if those count for notability. IgelRM (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources seem to have a staff page nor an editorial policy. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ua.tribuna appears to be one of the publications of tribuna.com, which seems to indicate that it is mainstream enough to be collaborating with the Ukrainian government. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ua.tribuna is also a blog post. In fact, all of their esports articles are blog posts. There is certainly no editorial standard there. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Eirik Suhrke
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#List of Strogg in Quake II