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, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183
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 New articles Popular pages By topic, By game 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.

Purge page cache

watch

See also Games-related deletions.

Lucina (Fire Emblem) (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)

Despite the fact this article appears to have a solid reception section, much of it is either TRIVIALMENTIONS or misrepresentations of the sources in question. Let's run down the list: Source 20: Tech Times is unreliable.

Source 21: GameZone only mentions Lucina once alongside a plethora of other characters, being a textbook TRIVIALMENTION

Source 22: Does not mention her at all

Source 23: Is hardly mentioned by the source despite what the text says; while true she was not criticized, the source itself does not say that she wasn't, only that she was not included in the article's criticism, which does not, unfortunately, provide SIGCOV.

Source 24: Is very brief and is largely a ROUTINE reaction to her trailer. Not unusable but certainly not SIGCOV.

Source 8/25: Largely discussing a popularity poll, which is historically not usable for notability. 25 does contain a paragraph discussing her new costume, but I am not sure how significant this is when it is one costume in one game (And a gacha game, at that). Not unusable but not strong.

Source 26: Largely plot summary with only brief commentary saying that she's popular.

27: Very much a low quality source just showing off Twitter posts with no actual commentary.

28/29: PRIMARY Sakurai response to fans.

30: Largely about Fire Emblem as a whole, with Lucina only mentioned briefly three times alongside many other characters. She is not the main subject of discussion here, nor a particularly significant one.

So in total, we have maybe one decent source and one brief add-on source. Nearly everything is trivial coverage at best, and a source search (A BEFORE), yielded very little else. Beyond her reception her article is just rehashing plot info from Awakening, her debut game, as well as other appearances as a whole. There's no real developmental info beyond the two Sakurai statements.

In short there's just not much commentary specifically about her character and no real info worth merging. Compare this to Robin (Fire Emblem), a character from the same game, where, while weak, has some decently significant coverage about their role in the story, their gender role in their appearances, and a fleshed out development section. Lucina has none of this. As a result, I propose a redirect as an AtD to Fire Emblem Awakening, her debut game, which is where she is most strongly associated, as there's very little worth merging over that is actually significant. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge While there's certainly some discussion of her out there, there does not appear to be sufficient WP:SIGCOV to justify a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per solid nom analysis of sources. My take was the same: lots of WP:TRIVIALMENTION and no real WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widgetkid (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'd had worked with Pokelego to try to find any sources I could, and we did a real deep dive, and so I can confirm that there was little to nothing that could be added to demonstrate notability in addition to what we have now, which ain't enough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all. I agree with the nominator's assessment of the sources and this doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. I support merge as a compromise WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question for everyone in favor of merging. Merge on the main page under synopsis?

Also I accidentally sent a reply too early bc I'm on mobile, sorry for potential notification spam. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator Games (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, creator appears to be WP:COI. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Tried a search in Canadian sources, this came up [1], but it's still only one source, paywalled and a game review, not really about the company. I don't see much else for coverage, maybe source 5, helpful but not extensive either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding Time (video game) (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)

148apps is basically the dividing line between this minor mobile game being notable or not, so I'm going to say GNG is failed here. The creator is a WP:SPA who seems to be a blatant WP:COI account. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I get this may be a bad place to litigate, but if 148Apps is genuinely a make-or-break for WP:GNG, it would be good to understand what rules it out compared to its Steel Mill Media partners. Steel Mill operates WP:RS Pocket Gamer and AppSpy [2] and 148 has been under their wing since 2011: [3]. The publisher have an editorial independence and sponsorship policy identical to all partners, which aren't displayed on the other sites either: [4]. 148Apps doesn't directly identify an editorial team like Pocket Gamer, but the editorial teams would seem to be closely interlinked anyway: Dan Sullivan is the editor in chief for both sites: [5][6] and PG deputy editor Stephen Gregson-Wood has written widely for 148 too [7]. There's evidence of other former editors with PG writing experience: [8] including a COO, Dave Bradley, who evidently had wide journalistic experience beyond Steel Mill including for SFX: [9]. The article author in question Rob Thomas admittedly has a low profile, but wrote over 100 reviews for 148Apps between 2011 to 2015 well within the Steel Mill era: [10]. I think this is barely enough, but if this is not a view to budge on or revisit here, agree the rest doesn't quite make it there and the outcome should be to delete. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets the minimum notability criteria with two reviews from reliable sources that are both significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  2 reviews has been way below the typical consensus for video game notability for years now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Had a search myself and I agree with @Zxcvbnm, there isn't enough coverage to warrant an article. 11WB (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Media (company) (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)

No reliable source. I only found this Gamespot article about THQ acquiring it. IgelRM (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. IgelRM (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From a developer interview: "Mass Media was (and still is) run by David Todd, who was the tech director at Cinemaware with Bob Jacob, back in the day." IgelRM (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 21:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furude Rika (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)

Awhile back when I saw this come up I moved it into the draft space so it had more time to cook, but now that it's out in the open again... this is more a wikia article than a wikipedia one. Some of the sources aren't reliable, and the entirety of the reception is a thesis and popularity polls.

I don't want this to come across as biting a newbie, but there's nothing here to indicate notability, and a WP:BEFORE didn't show anything either I could find. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Higurashi When They Cry. If the character is notable, then there should be sources dedicating coverage specifically to the character, and analyzing them, outside of basic plot overviews or taking bits and pieces from other sources. This article reeks of WP:REFBOMBING to give the illusion of notability. Once you reach Reception and legacy, you truly see how all of the REFBOMB-ing and CRUFT-ing falls apart with little to no word from reliable sources focused specifically on the character. The popularity polls mean nothing towards WP:SIGCOV and the thesis is simply not enough. λ NegativeMP1 17:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The character is mentioned individually in at least three sources, one of which an accademic study from the University of the People. If this does not reach a consensus on notability though, I will be merging alot of this into the various sections within the Higurashi main page, if that is indeed preferable. I will let other unbiased users decide the fate of the article regardless. I would just like to add this is the main character of a notable series and there are indeed some sources that focus solely on the character. You shall decide if it is worth notability. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "The character is mentioned individually in at least three sources" but do they discuss the character in detail? Do they offer reception regarding the character? Do they analyze the character? Please see WP:SIGCOV. λ NegativeMP1 21:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do the sources I added now suffice? They do not talk of Rika's role within the story (or at least not only) but they also talk of her as a narrative tool and as a case study. Some of the sources, such as the one by the University of the People also singled out Rika. Is this enough? The sources that do this have been doubled. VitoxxMass (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to use such sources and summarize them. The article should describe how she is a narrative tool, and a case study, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't the narrative role section explain that? Or more is needed? I'd like some tips VitoxxMass (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Does not seem independently notable as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify again or redirect The article did improve significantly, but insufficiently. It was very weak before, now it's just weak. The crucial reception section has improved, but mostly with trivial low reliability stuff like "placed x-th in some dime-a-dozen poll". However, at the very end there is a claim that "She was used as a case study for her narrative role and innovative writing for the time by multiple academic sources"; sadly, it is just a passing throw-away sentence. Sigh. This is the key finding that can prove that this is a topic worthy of being in Wikipedia. The nom should locate the sources cited and expand them (right now the third is not even URLed or otherwise verifiable). I see some more hits in GS, and I'd expect more to be available in Japanese, but the creator need to move beyond teenage/undergrad fancrufting and utilize academic sources, if they want such content (on fictional characters) to be in Wikipedia (good media sources, in-depth on the character, would do to, but whether they exist is hard to say). My BEFORE failed to find anything, sadly. Nonetheless she is a character from a critically acclaimed show, I expect her to be notable - one day, if not now. The nom work will likely be useful, as a starting block, to someone working in this in the future, if they are unwilling or unable to finish this properly (I am happy to offer advice, if asked). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. I would not object to recovering this page as a userpage draft, but only if they truly believe they can improve it further. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Darkin (video game) (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 sourcing on this game is pretty lackluster. Created by Coin945 who made a lot of really borderline or just non-notable pages, it has two reviews and a third from 148apps, a situational source. The other seems unreliable. Usually when a game is notable purely on the basis of 148apps, it's considered probably not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search didn't return anything useful: GNN Gamer (short and likely unreliable) Sina (short and likely unreliable) App Advice (unreliable) NineOverTen (unreliable blog)

There is not enough coverage to expand the article beyond a short gameplay and reception section. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was able to find some short coverage from AppSpy, but nothing else. Waxworker (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets the minimum notability criteria with two reviews from reliable sources that are both significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are multiple reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the game, such as esportsinsider.com, polygon.com, bleedingcool.com etc. Kyunde (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kyunde: - None of the sources you linked are about this game - they are about something else called "Darkin" in League of Legends. Waxworker (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two reviews from reliable sources (Pocket Gamer and TouchArcade) are enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Twilight (series) (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:GNG. The main argument in the previous deletion nomination was WP:PRESERVE which is invalid as an argument, existence does not immediately render notability, see WP:DON'T PRESERVE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Similar to what often happens with many book series, it might be better to merge borderline notable articles together into 1 series article than give them separate articles. First game has 2 previews: [11], [12], Return to Glory has 2 reviews: [13], Athyr Above has 2 reviews: [14], [15]. --Mika1h (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Edge of Twilight (video game). Specifically the descriptions of the other installments under a "related media" section (with some minor retooling, obviously). EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not worth the ATD though content merge is definitely warranted. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: as suggested above seems fine. Latest release was almost 15 yrs ago now, I'm not sure much more notability has been gained since then. Likely PROMO for the series, that appears largely defunct. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poly Bridge (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)

Seems to have insufficient notability for a series page, with all sources being about the first game in the series. Can easily be covered in the first game's article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Poly Bridge (video game) and move that article to this article name. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Poly Bridge such as gamespress.com,rockpapershotgun.com, thegamer.com, macstories.net and hardcoregamer.com etc .Kyunde (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Longworth (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:BIO. Most of the included refs are blogs or commercial sites. No reliable secondary sources found in Google search. Lexiconaut (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lexiconaut (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lacks reliable sigcov. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NACTOR, likely notable roles. Probably Keep. IgelRM (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wario (series) (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)

This article should become a disambiguation page. This article has already been split into Wario Land and WarioWare, as it simply constitutes one these articles pasted below the other, making no substantive connection between ‘‘Wario Land’’ and ‘‘WarioWare’’ beyond sharing the character name. The content is already structured as two separate tracks (distinct game lists, history, and characters) with no overarching discussion that requires them to be in one article. In this situation, combining them serves no clear encyclopedic purpose and functions mainly as a container page. This article contains no content about an overall Wario franchise; it is merely about two series. There is already an encompassing article about a List of Wario video games.

This supports a split under WP:SPLIT: when a page is effectively covering multiple independent topics that can stand alone more clearly, splitting improves focus and maintainability. Any limited relationship between the topics can be handled with hatnotes and cross-links rather than forcing a combined narrative (see WP:HATNOTE). Maintaining a thin navigational shell is also disfavored where it becomes essentially a directory of loosely related items (see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). Swordofneutrality (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Turn into disambiguation or redirect to List of Wario video games per nominator. However, I would contend that, at present, WarioWare lacks a show of individual notability as yet, with reception sources primarily being game reviews, which, to me, does not suggest independent notability as a series. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - uncertain on how exactly to proceed, but definitely agree that there's no way there's enough here to warrant essentially three separate series articles with this much overlap. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Making it a DAB page would violate WP:PTM, so that shouldn't be on the table. I also believe it is independently notable. Simply put, the existence of Wario Land and WarioWare pages do not negate the idea of a greater Wario series. Maybe there's "not enough here" right now, but that seems like a surmountable problem. I encourage the nom to focus on improvement rather than deletion-as-cleanup. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MERGEREASON would be the justifications for a merge here, for the record. Particularly the overlap passage. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can’t preserve non-notable topics out of aspiration. Independent commentary exists on WarioWare and WarioWare Land, but not on a combined Wario gaming franchise. The only notable topic that combines the two is a simple list, which already exists. Swordofneutrality (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wario video games. Sufficient notability within its sub-series but not on its own. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if it is found that Wario Land and WarioWare are both independently notable from one another, there isn't much of a point to having a main Wario series page. It would essentially exist to cover the Japan-only Mario & Wario, the Bomberman modification Wario Blast, and Wario's Woods. Wario didn't really have much that wasn't a platformer or a minigame compilation. I would be find with redirecting to List of Wario video games instead. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a list exists, then, per WP:LISTN, that assumes the notability of the base topic; otherwise, the list shouldn't exist. If there will be a list on "Wario games" rather than just "Mario games", then that is a very good reason WHY the Wario series article should be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though if only WarioWare and Wario Land are notable, perhaps the list ought to be split as well. That might be the play here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing we need is further splitting of WP:OVERLAPped content across even more articles. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to suggest there is no "Wario" series beyond original research, then the list saying there is a "Wario" series shouldn't be there, either. I don't believe there is "overlap" content because one series is a platformer and the other is a microgame collection. Sharing a name is not an "overlap". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're following. Yes, there are 2 distinct things here. Wario platformers and Wario minigame collections. Could it be one article? Yes. Could it be two articles? Yes. Does it need to be 4-5 articles when you start adding separate "list of" articles and/or this all-encompassing "series" article? Absolutely not.

It's not even one if those "but what about what's lost in a merger" situations. It just simply doesn't take 4-5 articles to outline this stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is really frustrating, because it seems to be making a problem that doesn't actually exist. The actual problem is that the rules are being followed in such a way that negatively impacts the reader. To quote WP:WIARM: "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." No, we don't need to have two lists in order for the series page to be redirected, because doing that would make the reader's experience worse, and I think you're losing perspective on that by being so stringent on the rules. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have more requirements than lists; there would have to be sourced content on aggregated aspects of the two series. Right now all the content is specific to one of the two. Swordofneutrality (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a list is does not suggest that a parent is notable, and if it is notable, then NOPAGE would suffice as a reason for why it shouldn't be separate. If WarioWare and Wario Land are separate articles, then a parent series to those two series would only really exist out of technicality. In this case, it's a pretty strong case of IAR, because it wouldn't serve a valuable purpose when it only represents three games. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Zxcvbnm. ConeKota (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Wario video games: I don't think this series page has enough on its own to warrant a standalone page. Merging or redirecting to the list article appears to be the least complicated option. 11WB (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also find that appropriate. Swordofneutrality (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there is clear consensus, with a redirect to List of Wario video games being favored.

Swordofneutrality — Redirect

Cukie Gherkin — Redirect

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ — Keep

Go D. Usopp — Redirect

ConeKota — Keep

11WB — Redirect Swordofneutrality (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAVOTE. Just because something has more people in favor of it doesn't mean consensus exists, esp. if the closer thinks one side's argument is weaker. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are several articles that establish notability, such as timeextension.com, gameinformer.com, and thegamer.com etc. Kyunde (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at those sources, they all treat WarioWare and Wario Land separately. They don’t go beyond the scope of List of Wario video games. No content for an article about an overall series. Swordofneutrality (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at these, the first source is strictly only about WarioWare (and thus would make more sense there if anywhere), and the latter two just make the point of saying that there exists a Wario series of video games (no one claims that there isn't one). The issue is that the "other games" section of Wario (series), the only section pertaining to stuff not to do with Wario Land and WarioWare, is literally one sentence long. Almost 100% of the article is repeated information from other articles, and to date, there is no evidence that games outside of the Wario Land and WarioWare series get any discussion as a collective. The closest thing we have is a couple sources mentioning that the Wario series exists. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, content is properly cited and meets notability criteria. Not opposed to merging or restructuring if that is preferred. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  On this matter, I don't understand what causes you to believe that there's notability for a collective Wario series page. Looking at the sources on the page:

  1. 1 is merely expressing excitement about a new WarioWare game
  2. 2 is a primary source
  3. 3-6 are just talking about individual games
  4. 7 and 8 is a source better suited for the WarioWare article
  5. 9-11 are primary sources

  I'm simply not sure what the benefit of having this page is. To date, based on both this AfD and the sources in the article, there is no significant coverage of the overall Wario series/franchise. At most, I've seen links to pages that say that there is such a series, but that isn't adequate to show notability. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if we assume that the series doesn't exist, the article can still cover distinct topics that share only a similar name, this is called a set-index article. Regarding duplication, articles on Wario Land and WarioWare should be redirected back to this article as it was until the nominator decided to split the article in two. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I could see an argument for WarioWare, but Wario Land presently has adequate sourcing to show that it is independently notable. I would be fine with converting this into a set-index article. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This cannot be made into a disambiguation page as Wario (disambiguation) already exists, and this would be WP:INCOMPDAB relative to that. BD2412 T 01:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What about a set index article without changing the title? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelopus (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)

Appears to fail NCORP. From my view, it should not be enough to part of Sony to be a notable developer. The Polygon feature on Entwined does not fulfill CORPDEPTH. I suggest a merge/redirect to Entwined as most paragraphs relate to that period. IgelRM (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NCORP failure. No clear redirect targets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with the games it developed. But it's fair to have a separate gave developer page as it created two notable for Wikipedia games Concrete Genie, Entwined (video game). I've just added additional media links with good coverage on Pixelopus Schtiapht (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, having two game articles on WP is not a criteria of WP:Notability. Looking at the 3 sources you have added: Newsweek's is a review of the game, significant coverage of Pixelopus. PC Mag and Engadget are both about PixelOpus shutting down, so about one event. I am fine with a merge/redirect, but to Concrete Genie or Entwined? I would suggest merging a development section on Entwined. IgelRM (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Very good question. I'm not sure which game it should be merged into. Maybe the debut Entwined is a better choice. Schtiapht (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Entwined (video game) per above. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Entwined (video game) and merge content per above. Otherwise Delete as the sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]