Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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:

Edit this page 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.
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

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

TAD Corporation

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD was contested with no sources given. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radon Labs

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage about them is trivial and mostly about their games rather than the studio. Created by WP:SPA, likely WP:PROMO, PROD was contested with no sources given. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Godot Wild Jam

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

I have no idea what the supposed claim to notability was for which this was declined as an A7 deletion candidate, as I sure don't see it. Anyway, total lack of notability. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, Godot is a popular game engine. Maybe not as popular as Unity and Unreal, but it's still popular. But keep in mind that if something falls under WP:POPULARITY it does not mean its notable. A quick Google Search shows up 0 reliable sources regarding this game jam competition. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what User:Vacant0 said, there are 0 reliable sources. As the admin who declined the A7, A7 requires a claim to significance, which imo this game jam article has in the form of being one of the oldest Godot game jam competitions (and also being endorsed by Godot). I have also explicitly asked the author to consider atleast consider merging a bit of the page into Godot game engine since clearly this article stands no chance of being a standalone one due to a lack of sourcing. -- Sohom (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the oldest Godot game jam competitions ": not in article
- being endorsed by Godot"; not in article
So what claim to notability was there???

And why would you suggest them to merge when there is not a single reliable independent source about it???

Please don't give such bad advice to editors, and please don't make claims not supported by the article. Fram (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram This is not necessarily a unknown game jam in the Godot community (I kinda follow game jams to a certain extent as a outsider in the indie game dev community). Godot does "endorse" the game jam at [1]. Similarly, indie game dev communities (and particularly indie game jams) are not well documented by mainstream media sources and this is a problem (imo?). My solution for a merge would be to document game jams within godot on the Wikipedia article and include Godot Wild as one of the many examples of such game jams. I understand if my advice could have been misinterpreted, but I don't think my suggestion is necessarily out of the world or completely against any Wikipedia policy. Don't understand this extremely combative and adversarial attitude you are giving me here. Sohom (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So nothing of what you claimed was in the article, was actually in the article. But somehow you can't just say that. And no, there is nothing to merge. My "extremelu combattive and adversarial attitude" (sheesh, you have lived a sheltered life if this is so extreme) is probably caused by an admin causing extra work and giving bad advice while not wanting to answer even the simplest questions. Fram (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Godot game engine. Alternatively merge into a list documenting many known and notable indie game jams, as suggested by Sohom above. Not seeing GNG coverage here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What source warrants merging? What source warrants the description "known and notable"? Fram (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SigCov that I could find, the one source in the article is primary. Mostly social medial or blogs that come up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the nomination, I have no idea what claim to significance or notability is being made here. Its a massive list that's either unsourced or clearly sourced to the subject's official website, which would be a primary source that doesn't count towards notability. And just as well, even if sources are found, this article should never exist as is. This sort of information should be on their own website, not hosted on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Sohom Datta for a/the discussion on significance. Claims to notability are at present not present. Sohom (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but I can't say I'd agree that I see a credible claim to significance here. It is up to subjective interpretation, but I can't say I would have done the same thing personally. But that's neither here nor there now that we're at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear GNG fail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I created this article, and I have heard what all of you have said and think it makes the most sense to merge this article with Godot game engine in a section for Game Jams, especially because it is endorsed by Godot. Vainslie (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be WP:UNDUE to mention it in an overall article about Godot engine, given that there are literally hundreds of game jams a year. It would quickly balloon out of control if every single game jam was given a mention regardless of its notability. There is nothing pointing to this jam being different than the numerous others for Godot or other engines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge and with what sources? Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I was considering merging with Godot game engine, but what Zxcvbnm said also makes sense. I see no difference between this game jam and Godot Wild Jam. The same amount of people enter in it, and the Godot Wild Jam happens more often. Vainslie (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a WP:OSE argument, in this case it's likely that the other game jam is also non-notable and should be deleted. A lot of its sourcing is from individual games from the jam, and notability is not inherited. Some of the "three best sources" noted on its talk page are just trivial coverage, so it doesn't engender much confidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see your point. From my own independent research, I can't find any other Godot-specific endorsed Game Jams. I think it would be sensical to add it to Godot game engine. Vainslie (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan J-Mat Fitness

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are two sources from 2008, but no professional reviews and little else in the way of significant coverage on this game. Could possibly be merged or redirected to Xavix, the console article, but I'm not sure there's much reason to do so. MidnightMayhem 08:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Health and fitness, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Xavix For some reason my reasoning was not posted, but let's go again. What I wanted to say is that we could include the game in the table of that article. Other than that, the topic did not receive significant coverage in reliable source, therefore it does not warrant its own article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these sources. Still checking.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] Timur9008 (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis on these:

1, 2, and 4 are very brief summaries of the game and system, without much detail.
3 is a paragraph on a middle school exercise event where the game was played. This is hardly noteworthy.
5 is a press release that seems more relevant for coverage of the Xavix system than the game itself.
6 is primarily coverage of Jackie Chan Stuntmaster. This actually seems like a good source for improving that article, so I've placed it on the talk page there for later. However, it only mentions Fitness in passing - not significant coverage of this title.
7, 8, and 9 are sources directly from Xavix. Advertising materials are not WP:SIGCOV.

Thank you for looking, I really appreciate your work. However, I'm not convinced that these sources could be used to meaningfully expand this article. MidnightMayhem 17:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The game appears to come up in a lot of studies regarding exergaming - scholarly articles like this are a bit out of my depth so I'm not confident in assessing whether these would be suitable sources, but here's two that I found: Energy Cost of Exergaming A Comparison of the Energy Cost of 6 Forms of Exergaming, and Fitness Assessment Comparison Between the Jackie Chan Action Run Videogame, 1-Mile Run/Walk, and the PACER. I also found this short coverage from Gizmodo. Waxworker (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grinding Gear Games

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, perhaps a merge target to Path of Exile. IgelRM (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and New Zealand. IgelRM (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Path of Exile per nom, no notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Path of Exile: This company seems to lack coverage in reliable sources as pointed out by the nominator. It'd be more benefitial to redirect this topic. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax Studio

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

DePRODed alleging sources exist; no specific sources demonstrated that may prove notability, however, only a vague wave. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH with a dearth of significant coverage not specifically about games they developed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The studio created a video game with a fairly prolific cast and more footage than just about any other game, plus an independent science fiction film with Patton Oswalt, Robert Picardo, and Patrick Warburton. I understand sourcing was/is an issue, but I just added one from the Springfield News-Leader about MEAD. More will come soon, I'm just coming off a long work stretch. Jg2904 (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, notability is not inherited by a company from works they created. That source would not technically count towards notability of the studio. MEAD (film) (or MEAD, since I just moved it due to WP:DIFFCAPS) has an article already; that is where to put that reference, not here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J. Allen Williams - As Parallax would be considered a company and need to qualify under WP:NCORP, it must be shown there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. The references used in the draft can verify it exists, verify the films exist, and talk about the founder. A search found sources such as this that are more in-depth about Williams as a filmmaker and simply state the films were produced through the studio. He is notable, the company (which is basically a name used by him to put on the films) is not. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya Studio

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

DePRODed alleging notability, but no sources were provided. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found no coverage in reliable sources besides an interview by NWR. Just because it has developed 11 games, it does not mean that it's notable. See WP:FAME. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Software

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Previous AfD was pretty flimsy and doesn't seem to have demonstrated there were sufficient sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it fails WP:NCORP and also fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond was a very important developer of games. Lords of Midnight in particular. It needs improvement, but to delete is simply to deny knowledge. MrMarmite (talk)
- So where's the part where they pass WP:NCORP or, more importantly, WP:GNG? The claim that deleting this article is the denial of knowledge also makes no sense. They'd still be mentioned on the pages for the games they made... λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, and NCORP as well seemingly, but failing GNG is a more significant issue. λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan Software

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

Disputed PROD, I do not believe this company passes WP:NCORP with a significant lack of coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my own WP:BEFORE did not yield positive result for this article. The available sources are not WP:RS because they are press releases and announcements. Patre23 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Valhalla and the Lord of Infinity if the subject itself lacks SIGCOV citations to support it.Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redir per above. My quick WP:BEFORE didn't find much. There's several targets, but that one seems OK. Widefox; talk 18:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PomPom Games

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

Didn't notice a previous PROD which was removed with no rationale by the article creator. Company fails WP:NCORP with no evident reliable source coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Software

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

This article was created in an obvious attempt to circumvent the very recent prior consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game) and the older consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Software (game developer), collectively establishing that Wikipedia should not cover this topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete and salt The article leans heavily on a Mashable article from 2024 that has no consensus for reliability, and a Sports Illustrated article from 2025 that is an unreliable source. The Game Developer source is a primary-sourced interview. Therefore, I think the sourcing is too weak to pass WP:NENTERTAINER, and he hasn't directed sufficient notable games to pass WP:NARTIST. It's possible he could still become notable in the future, but it should require approval from an admin to recreate such an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still too early. Most of the article relies on the recent controversy therefore it also does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (leaning towards): While I initially created the deletion discussion for the Heartbound games page, because it was clearly written with a COI as an ad-piece and lacked any notability and sources on the entire internet, as also then found in the discussion, I am more hesitant to immediately call the creator of this game not noteworthy enough, as even the Hawk Tuah girl has received an article. The problem and my reasoning for leaning towards deletion is this: The person in question has successfully fabricated his biography through constantly repeated and now found to be conflicting statements (repeating them everywhere until they were believed to be true) to the extend that there is now no verifiable sources for most of his supposed doing/work. In addition to that even through the deletion discussion for his game there was a fierce debate in his discord server as to how one could “change the narrative” and “create sources that support the [supposedly] correct viewpoint”. These efforts have muddied the water even more. So the only argument for noteworthiness relies on the viewing numbers of this streamer, I find that rather weak, but if this discussion finds another consensus than deletion, I would prefer the article to be shortened immensely to more relevant and highly verified facts (like the hawk tuah page) and then locked until further developments. Otherwise I do agree with above comments on this being a circumvention of previous deletions, which were supported by lack of notability and most importantly any *unbiased* sources.

TheDigamma (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than rumors and suspicions. In the assumption that he lied about his past, this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and we rely on sources to vet the information as accurate. The only question here is "are there enough reliable sources" and the answer seems to be no. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my language. My thinking/argument was: for most persons interviews can be considered as somewhat reliable sources. For this person this is not possible, therefore a large number of sources that currently support this article are not reliable. TheDigamma (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Since the 2022 deletion, the article’s subject has won two awards for streaming content and gained notoriety for his political activism. Adding a section on his Heartbound game also contributes notability, and is a suitable replacement for having an entire separate article about the game.

I find the accusation of 'an obvious attempt to circumvent ... prior consensus' fails WP:AGF, and the conclusion that the previous threads 'collectively [establish] that Wikipedia should not cover this topic' infers too much. One thread is recent but establishes that an entire article on its topic would be excessive, but that doesn't imply that a subsection of another article wouldn't be an appropriate way of documenting it until/unless it gains more notability; the other is three years old and clearly predates significant events increasing the subject's notability. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding a section on his Heartbound game also contributes notability..." It does not. Notability is not inherited from things someone creates, and the game itself is non-notable anyway. Otherwise, please state which sources demonstrate WP:NBIO is passed, rather than relying on the argument of WP:FAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to then ask whether the awards he won count as "significant" under NBIO's definition. I am, personally, not convinced. The Streamer Awards page seems non-notable on its face, with the only SIGCOV being about the trophy being a hate symbol - not exactly stellar evidence of its significance. Unless the Streamer Awards can be determined as a major honor, this is doubtful - it's more reserved for obviously huge achievements like a Purple Heart, Emmy Award or Presidential Medal of Freedom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're new awards in a fairly new category of entertainer, and the only major awards for which an entertainer of that kind would regularly be eligible. One might as well write off all streamers as non-notable if one is going to go down this path. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that means all streamers aren't notable. Some streamers have received tons of mainstream coverage in reliable sources, which doesn't require winning awards to have. Awards can contribute to notability but certainly aren't required for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Zx. Not suitable here and NARTIST and NENTERTAINER are obviously not met. I also would hardly call Heartbound a significant enough game to go towards NARTIST. It is not a critically acclaimed or highly notable game - the article was literally deleted for it. By applying the logic that Heartbound contributes towards it, then basically any indie game developer would be able to get an article regardless of how notable their game is (even if it only received the bare minimum reviews to psss GNG). But that isn't how things work. I also would not consider the Streamer Awards to be a significant award. Furthermore, I personally would throw any sort of subject-specific guideline out the window in favor of GNG, because at WP:Notability, it clearly states "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia". So the subject doesn't pass GNG, does not have strong enough sourcing, isn't a sufficient topic for an encyclopedia... yeah, I'm comfortable with completely throwing any sort of NPERSON SNG out the window here. λ NegativeMP1 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough reliable sources to warrant its existence, which was the reason the previous articles were deleted. Sure, the Heartbound section may get removed, but the entire article? You guys are on crack. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources are reliable? TheDigamma (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources aren't reliable? We’ve got Eurogamer, IGN, the Times of India, the Verge, Mashable ... there are some other sites cited which I haven't heard of, but I'm not a huge gamer myself so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (personally — someone who knows more about what sources in this subject area are reliable could maybe point to any particular problematic ones). The article would probably stand up to fair scrutiny even with only those five, though. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the ones present the following are GR per WP:RSP and WP:VG/S: The Verge (2), PCGamesN (2), GamesRadar+ (2), IGN (1), Shacknews (1), Game Developer (1), Dot Esports (2), GamesIndustry.biz (1), Hobby Consolas (1), AUTOMATON (1), PC Gamer (1) and Gamepressure.com (2). 17 generally reliable sources, most of which mention or reference him in the title. (as Pirate Software, Thor, ex-Blizzard dev, etc.) Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the collection you've mentioned I can poke holes in the following:

• Consensus appears to indicate that the Mashable article is not a reliable source, which also is in part an interview.

• The PC gamer article makes no mention of Jason Hall, only his father, and is being used as WP:OR to back up the Mashable article.

• The PCGamesN articles are both only used in brief mentions in the lead section that are used to say that he is a streamer and game developer respectively without anything pertaining to Hall's work.

• IGN article is used only once to cite Heartbound, which has been established as failing to meet notability guidelines.

• Both GamesRadar+ articles seem to literally just restate his own videos that he has uploaded. Additionally, the first one (regarding Hades) is not relevant to anything in his career.

• The Game Developer article is entirely an interview without dialogue between the interviewer, leaving it effectively written by Hall.

UppercutPawnch (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Heartbound has been established as not notable enough for its own article. This article should certainly mention it because it belongs to why the subject is notable, which means Heartbound needs a cite. 2. We’re talking about reliability here. What claim a source is used to back up is a different question from the source’s reliability. IGN’s reliability is not in doubt. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This article was moved to the main space one day after the related article for Heartbound was nominated for deletion; Heartbound is a major section of this article and one of the major three (work history, heartbound, controversies) that has generally reliable albeit few sources. Since moved to main space, the article had and continues to have issues, mainly WP:NPOV and WP:V.

A majority of my edits were for style and MOS:EDITORIAL. However, I cannot reconcile that sources of dubious reliability, especially the Wikipedia:MASHABLE source, is frequently relied upon in the bio (the article is also an interview with the subject). Referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game), one source (Paek, Game Developer) previously assessed as not counting to GNG, and one partially compliant source (Jagneaux, IGN) have been again referred to in this loosely related article.

Otherwise, I agree that this article falls under Wikipedia:Sustained. Recent scandals are the source of a lot of information in this article, Heartbound was recently assessed as not notable, and the biography relies on too many sources with dubious reliability or interviews. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move to mainspace was not made because of the deletion of Heartbound. I worked on the draft of this article, trying to find as much reliable sources as I could. After scouring the Google's news tab while constantly checking the WP:VG/S page for several days, I decided that I found what I could, removed unsourced info and moved the article to mainspace. So no correlation to the Heartbound deletion whatsoever, just bad timing. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, let me clarify then that I don't agree with the accusation of circumvention, just that the Heartbound discussion included general discussions on reliability and the mention of sources that fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, and that I believe this applies to this article where it is a major section. Nonetheless, I still stand by my assessment as a whole. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per comments above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, TheDigamma, and TheAlienAdventures. That the subject has fabricated his biography through constantly repeated and now found to be conflicting statements and that the article has contained some of these WP:BLP issues with NPOV, V, etc. is also a cause to TNT and begin again. GuardianH 21:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge SKG and only the Stop Killing Games sections into, well, Stop Killing Games. Gamepressure seems reliable (see also VG/S) and sources that section with a pretty important part of the initiative's history. Meanwhile, the WoW incident is borderline notable and doesn't contribute enough content to justify a standalone article for a living person whose details are fuzzy, and probably belongs better in the article for the OnlyFangs clan's leader. For the rest of the article, I find the arguments for TNT convincing. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Anything of note can, and has, been mentioned in the respective article itself. If done properly this page would be an amalgam of "See main article" links over and over again. He won an award? Mention that on the award page. He caused issues for Stop Killing Games? Mention that on the Stop Killing Games page. Once you get past that, there's nothing left to mention. Padillah (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SKG per Aaron Liu. I agree with the arguments above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, TheDigamma, and TheAlienAdventures as to why this article should be deleted, though I believe the section on Stop Killing Games has enough notability to significantly add onto the article on that topic. I am hesitant to believe that this article is a circumvention attempt per Daphne Preston-Kendal, though I will note that I do recognize a few editors on this page that also seem to have participated in the development in the Heartbound article when I lurked during the AfD and I am concerned with biased editing in favor of the streamer due to negative comments made about this page in his personal Discord. UppercutPawnch (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire article seems to hinge on two events with one being more questionable on the notable side. This seems to be WP:SINGLEEVENT. Though of course with only with two events as opposed to one.

i could very well see the deletion of the wow controversy due to its quality and notability. Which would further bring into question the notability of this current wiki. LordOfPeepz (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to prevent recreations in the near future. Yue🌙 07:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I don't think the recent controversy surrounding SKG or every other petty drama he's been warrants an article. Majoriminorionoj (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SKG per above 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge with SKG or Draftify. I would rather not delete and/or salt unless there is absolutely no choice. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 22:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it! 2803:9800:B018:7EE1:D95F:CDFC:75EA:3723 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Controversial internet figures are frequent subjects to a certain knee-jerk response from many on Wikipedia, which is to purge and hide articles and mentions of these figures, regardless of the scale of their following, their notable works and/or their documentation by reputable sources. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a repository for all things "internet drama", but some definitely take this concept way too far, creating gaps in information leading to unnecessarily poor and spotty coverage surrounding phenomena, events and subcultures found on the internet. A Simple Fool (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith please. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I assume bad faith? I merely stated that a certain attitude towards internet culture topics leads to Wikipedia's coverage of internet-based topics being lower quality and less cohesive than it really needs to be. A Simple Fool (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you assert that this policy based deletion nomination is a just “knee jerk response“ while providing no policy based arguments to counter it. That is not arguing while assuming good faith. It is even not a valid argument. TheDigamma (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy seems to have a long history of notoriety for more than one thing, and the article's sourcing is mostly credible. There's already gaps of information about notable people on Wikipedia, just because they don't meet certain purity tests. chiffre01 (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is this article credible and notable? Others and myself have listed many arguments towards deletion based on Wikipedia Policy. What are your policy based reasons for keeping it? TheDigamma (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. I agree with the original claim, its an attempt to circumvent the very recent prior consensus on the heartbount page. Sources here are not reliable either, not any concensus at all on what should be here too and the current article is already bias. Liamedits1000 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parroty Interactive

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

DePRODed with the rationale that the page "deserves to stay". WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid rationale, and no actual sources were provided by the person. The company appears to fail WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect to procedure, I think one is allowed to restore a PROD if an anonymous IP interferes with such a message. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are not considered a "lesser class" as far as Wikipedia is concerned, unless there is obvious evidence that it is vandalism or purposeful disruption. In this case it doesn't seem that way, just someone who thinks it may be notable, making it a valid dePROD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: The brief LA Times review of one product is the best reference but is insufficient to meet WP:NCORP for this Palladium Interactive division. However, a redirect to Microshaft Winblows 98 could be an ATD. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Razorworks

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

Deproded claiming sufficient sources were found to pass WP:NCORP. I dispute that claim and believe the company still fails notability criteria, with the sources found being trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rebellion Developments. I could see a case being made for this article to be kept, but I think it would serve the greater good if the information from this article was moved into Rebellion's article, since they were the last owner of the studio before it was shut down. I don't think anyone is going to find any significant coverage to pass WP:NCORP given how short of a time the company was actually independent. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Empire Interactive. They didn't develop any games for Rebellion, all of their games were published by Empire so it's the more appropriate target. --Mika1h (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rossignol

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

Questionable notability. Minimal notability from scarce documentation of his RPS career and founding Big Robot. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Video games, and United Kingdom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Minimal citations exists in the article, but co-founding RPS arguably meets point 3 of WP:JOURNALIST. Nil🥝^Talk 03:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RPS is not a significant "creative work", but a commercial site that aggregates smaller articles. I do not believe WP:JOURNALIST is passed here, as it might be if it was a major work of investigative journalism or the like. There is no separate notability criteria for a businessperson. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support redirect to Rock Paper Shotgun due to his major association with the publication and mention there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuju (company)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of what's out there are trivial announcements and press releases. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears rather well established per MCV, how much of a BEFORE was done here? IgelRM (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly enough to make me do an AfD. If you do have some proof of notability besides being old or a success in Britain, then you are free to show it, of course, I am always willing to withdraw if I have missed something major. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page you referenced clearly indicates an article does not require international importance to be included. The company has published a number of significant titles and is seen as very successful within the UK gaming scene, so I see no reason it warrants deletion.

This article has survived for nearly 20 years, so it's reasonable to expect someone would have already AfD'd the article if it didn't meet the criteria for notability. GeekBurst (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it's really not reasonable to expect that. Many articles survive for that long. In fact, I'd assume that a large chunk of the articles on Wikipedia are non-notable, just ignored or off in a dusty corner somewhere. The bar for "spam" is pretty low, and just includes blatant promotion, while articles that seem fine, but are made for promotion with no reliable sources, are allowed to pass simply because they look okay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article just needs a cleanup, it doesn't need TNT. I can see this company has released a number of titles, including some fairly significant ones. A lack of international significance doesn't preclude inclusion in Wikipedia, otherwise companies that only operate in a single country wouldn't have their own articles. GeekBurst (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not offered any actual policy based evidence it should be kept, simply saying that it made "significant" titles. This may be, but that just means the titles are notable. Notability is not inherited by a company for notable things they made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Am going to point you to Wikipedia:Subjective importance GeekBurst (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective importance is about how things are NOT notable even if some people believe them to be important. Having WP:SIGCOV is really the only thing that can prove notability, full stop. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ - Found one piece of SIGCOV: 5-page article in Edge magazine: [11]. Mostly about a game they made but there's enough about the company itself. Unfortunately one article is not enough for notability. Can't think of any WP:ATD target either... --Mika1h (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[12] Article on Kuju's delve into VR development, counts as sigcov.

[13] also works too. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The additional coverage by GamesIndustry and Game Developer seems enough for a keep. There's also this article by MCV that rises above routine coverage: [14]. --Mika1h (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article appears to be mostly about Curve Digital, which already has a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this: [15] Kuju and Curve Digital formed a new company called Curve Digital Entertainment. That's what the article seems to be about, very confusing. --Mika1h (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to mean that Curve Digital/Catalis is the notable entity if Kuju isn't historically notable. PocketGamer.biz IgelRM (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from MCV about the founders. IgelRM (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG, though more work is needed. [16] as an additional sigcov source besides the sources I listed. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Usopp, but per WP:GNG, all references that count towards notability cannot be from the same site. They have to all come from different authors and publications. I considered this already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 mentioned sources are written by 3 different people across 2 publications? GeekBurst (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should specify that it has to be both different authors and different publications. So it would need to be 3 people, 3 publications to meet the typical minimum standard of notability. Ones from the same author/publication are usable for informational purposes, of course, but not for the purpose of proving something is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some coverage exists and also have notable works (60+ video games, which have wiki articles and reviews), so the company is notable, as the works are a representation of the main company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkm777 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the company's products. This was clearly said above. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toi8

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

A search for reliable sources in WP:VG's search engine only turns out a few handful of results regarding his involvement in specific games, not about the artist himself. A google news lookup is largely the same story. ExoNeos (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Left guide (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NCREATIVE #3 due to his significant role in Tokyo Mirage Sessions. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think WP:NARTIST is passed, as he is not the sole character designer for those games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for what its worth, the nominator is now indeffed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this person meets WP:NCREATIVE 3 based on their light novel illustrations, being the sole illustrator for My Daughter Left the Nest and Returned an S-Rank Adventurer and Who Killed the Hero?, as well as co-illustrating Maoyu. The bad faith of the nom also certainly doesn't help their case. Link20XX (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing notability there, unfortunately. The sourcing on all of those articles is weak to nonexistent. Bad faith editors should be discussed at WP:ANI rather than used as an AfD argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure those articles aren't the best, but there is absolutely sourcing for all of them. Took only a few minutes to find good sources for each: 1st ([17], [18]), 2nd ([19], [20]), 3rd ([21], [22]). Link20XX (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, unfortunately those are all about the anime rather than the mangas. It still doesn't indicate that the illustrator is notable for drawing the mangas. While he has worked on anime, it's not those, and not on a major level. Therefore, my opinion still stands completely unchanged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to show that all of those I mentioned above are indeed notable works. WP:NCREATIVE 3 states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Thus, any notable works count towards this criteria. But, if coverage of the original works themselves is what you want, that exists too. For one thing, Who Killed the Hero? has no anime adaptation (at least for now), thus it's impossible those sources could be about a non-existent anime. My Daughter Left the Nest and Returned an S-Rank Adventurer has some coverage of the manga from a quick search [23] and I also found that Conqueror of the Dying Kingdom, which he played a similar role to the previous works has coverage too ([24], [25]). This work does not have an article, but being the subject of multiple reviews still allows a work to satisfy that criteria, which those articles are. Link20XX (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:COOKIE, just working in the anime/games industry doesn't confer notoriety in and of itself, in addition to the clear lack of in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidari (illustrator)

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

A google news search only provides a wacom tablet showcase by crunchyroll of him. A japanese source search provides little of the illustrator himself, only the works he is credited on. ExoNeos (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Left guide (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NCREATIVE #3. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:But you did not explain why he meets this criteria. ExoNeos (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Left guide (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific notability guidelines: "he subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia". Arguably meeting part of an SNG guideline (which, I don't see how he does, none of his works seem particularly significant or impactful on their own) does not cut it if GNG is not met. He isn't even the main artist of some of these works (e.g. Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia). λ NegativeMP1 23:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NegativeMP1. The Keep argument does not cite why he meets NCREATIVE and is therefore a WP:VAGUEWAVE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edelweiss (visual novel)

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

Article fails WP:GNG, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edelweiss (visual novel). Rainsday (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? The sources I provided seem sufficient to meet GNG? W3ryfrate (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This game lacks reliable, third-party coverage. Rainsday (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I added additional references if you want to check for yourself. Both the original game and the fandisc have a page on Kotaku.^[1]^[2] The MangaGamer localization has been covered by Anime News Network^[3] and the release of the fandisc has been covered by Siliconera.^[4]

I also cited the official website of the development company OVERDRIVE as well as the publisher itself, MangaGamer. While for Reception I cited an article by UK Anime Network^[5]. There's probably more sources if I dig for it. W3ryfrate (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with only trivial coverage. Obviously, I'm open to change it if anyone finds Japanese coverage of a significant nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see above the citations, it seems like enough coverage? W3ryfrate (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. Sources have to be both independent and secondary, as well as more than just a trivial mention. Simply having a page or a short announcement is not significant coverage, but a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources cited in the article are independent, except for the plot section and the introduction section, there, alongside other independent sources, I also cited MangaGamer and OVERDRIVE's official website. The articles cited cover the game's plot as well as technical information, and some have even a review of the game + fandisc. W3ryfrate (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple resources are cited from independent and reliable sources which cover the content of the article adequately. W3ryfrate (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: W3ryfrate (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The standard for video games is 2-3 reviews from reliable publications for notability. On MobyGames I see two reviews from a NeroHelp which is a Russian site I see no previous discussion on, and Gaming Target where one person said in 2009 on WP:VGRS was unreliable. The UK Anime review is OK as its an Andy Hanley review per WP:A&M/RS, so if either of the other two publications are deemed reliable this is keepable. Jumpytoo Talk 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Edelweiss". Kotaku. 2022-04-08. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ "Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Kotaku. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ "MangaGamer Announces Trial Version for Edelweiss". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ Sahdev, Ishaan (2010-02-21). "MangaGamer Annnounce Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Siliconera. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ H., A. (2012-10-12). "Edelweiss / Edelweiss: Eiden Fantasia (PC)". UK Anime Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

Keep: Sources 6 and 12 are listed as RS and cover this computer program/visual novel. Seems to pass coverage for video games. Also some note in the anime community, source 6 in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MangaGamer. Source 6 is a press release from MangaGamer, it's a primary source. Only secondary source in the article currently that is both significant coverage and reliable is UK Anime. Not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about Siliconera? Also Kotaku? Plus, the Story section of the article seems to come directly from ANN editors, might be wrong though. W3ryfrate (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are seeing on Kotaku, it's just a directory listing. There is no actual coverage of the game. Siliconera is also just copy and pasting a press release directly from the company... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're both third-party coverage of the game by reputable sources regardless, without counting the other sources mentioned in the othe thread NeroHelp and Gaming Target (this one is iffy since it's on the unreliable list but the discussion was in 2009 and may be outdated). W3ryfrate (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being listed on a website is not coverage, especially given that Kotaku has extremely indiscriminate standards for what they include. Kotaku indexes basically every fan game, mod, and ROM hack it seems. That being said, even if we disregard how indiscriminate Kotaku's index is, it doesn't mean the level of WP:SIGCOV required for the purposes of establishing notability. It's not enough to merely grab three reliable sources, the sources have to have something of note to say about the subject. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Have to unfortunately concur with Zxcvbnm here. Can't find any good coverage, and unless some emerges there's no sourcing to meet GNG. Syndicated press releases don't count. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. There is disagreement on whether coverage is sufficient so a source assessment table would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Mini

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

Fails WP:GNG. Very little content with a lack of sources required to provide notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one review [26]. Not seeing anything else. Timur9008 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reviews by IGN: [27] and Pocket Gamer magazine: [28]. Borderline notable game, 3 reviews, 2 on the shorter side but I think it's just enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per demonstrated reviews, it clearly does not fail the GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illuvium (company)

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

Fails WP:NCRYPTO and WP:NCORP. Most of the in-depth coverage is focused on Kieran and Aaron Warwick, not the company. Gheus (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Cryptocurrency, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parsoft Interactive

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

Contested PROD a long time ago. Fails WP:NCORP, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found one article but that's it: [29]. --Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View (company)

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

Disputed PROD that gave no sources. Fails WP:NCORP, and yes I did search for "Point of View Inc" in magazines and still found very little. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its mentioned a few times in relation to the (troubled) development of Sonic Xtreme, so if nothing else could be found, I'd be against deletion if it could be redirected there (or elsewhere if they've got a more important role, but I mostly know them from their work with Sega.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73, I don't find any instance of Point of View at Sonic X-treme. What am I missing? ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned a few times across Sonic X-treme#Design and Sonic X-Treme#Disputes within Sega. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure how I missed that. I don't think their small role in that project merits the redirect you are suggesting. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some indepth google searching with some time boxing to their earlier period. I can only find very minor mentions. I think this is not notable

Czarking0 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Circus (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. The JP page isn't much better in this regard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I disagree with the nominator, the ja.wiki article is well in-depth/referenced. Svartner (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument. Please state these "sources" here that prove notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis this appears to be a very specialist company and the Wikipedia article is unsourced apart from the company website. It's very difficult, with such a generic name, to find independent reliable non-industry sources about the company. As such, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't difficult to find related sources, but this article is mostly a list of games anyway. Fine with delete. IgelRM (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project Moon

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

Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of significant coverage. There is coverage of one specific controversy involving the studio, but that alone does not confer inherited notability on the studio itself. Contested PROD that claims WP:SOURCESEXIST, but no examples given, nor could I find any in any language. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and South Korea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources exist, independently from the controversy.[30][31][32] Inven is a video gaming outlet, but the latter two — News1 and Pressian — are legitimate news media commonly cited here and their coverage goes beyond simple mentions, reporting about the company's prospect. They are not in the article yet, but I can add them. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORPTRIV. The 2nd and 3rd articles are very clearly "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a routine coverage. It's Suwon city goverment investing on the company, which is rare and far from standard. Reports related to the controversy also satisfy audience requirement since newspapers like Yonhap News Agency, Kyunghyang Shinmun, and The Hankyoreh are some of the biggest news agencies in the nation. All of these are best compiled in the article about the company. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a brief 1-paragraph article that says that someone invested in the company. This falls under WP:CORPTRIV as "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital", or something similar. Who did it is irrelevant. I think my point has been made though, so I won't push it further besides stating my opinion you are incorrect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suwon's investment agreement is always a focal point of the regional newspapers due to the major perks and development in the special case city economics, which are stated in the articles, so I disagree with that. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your take on the article is a fundamental misunderstanding of NCORP guidelines. The articles are regurgitations of announcements by Suwon so not "independent content" and fails ORGIND. Now, you say an investment by Suwon is rare and therefore notable - ok, perhaps that is true but all we care about is that sourcing provided in-depth independent content about the company. If it really was rare and notable, why has no other publication written an article using "independent content"? If you can find one which doesn't simply regurgitate the same content as the announcement then that is a source that would be counted towards notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Emiya Mulzomdao's sources grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to mostly center around Kim Ji-hoon. Some sources, Gamemeca.com, inven.co.kr, notability looks rather weak. IgelRM (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources above meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If sources exist beyond my ability to find and are linked here, I'm happy to revisit this. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brace Yourself Games

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, coverage of the company consists of trivial announcements and mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is connected to Ryan Clark, question is whether those Independent Games Festival nominations etc are sufficient for WP:NARTIST. IgelRM (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that Clark passes WP:NARTIST due to his primary role at the studio he founded, creating numerous notable games. However, I can't find any RS about him either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is also connected to its partnership with Nintendo on Nintendo's arguably best known IP. See, e.g., coverage from IGN, Inverse. Thewritestuff92 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cadence of Hyrule is unquestionably notable as a game given how incredibly rare it is for Nintendo to license their IP to an indie. However, that is not "inherited" by the studio. Given that it was essentially a one-off situation, it doesn't seem that the studio in itself is notable due to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crypt of the NecroDancer. The studio's best known and most notable work, so any developer info would fit in the Development section. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge. The studio made a number of well-known games besides Crypt of the Necrodancer, so there is no obvious target that would not invoke WP:SURPRISE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hopefully reach consensus, as opposition to the merge has been voiced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BitComposer Interactive

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

Disputed PROD - company fails WP:CORPDEPTH with its coverage consisting of minor announcements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my PROD dispute message for convenience: GamesMarkt. IgelRM (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Ein Jahr bitComposer: "Gründung in der Krise war Glücksgriff", bitComposer startet durch. IgelRM (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not significantly covered in reliable sources ApexParagon (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on above, Gamesmarkt was clearly a reliable source? IgelRM (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems to require a subscription, so I cannot confirm that. Even assuming it is reliable though, that is just one of several necessary to pass NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MCV on bitcomposer licenses; perhaps THQ Nordic is a redirect target. IgelRM (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just relisting to see if there is support for the last minute redirection suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the redirect suggestion. All the article mentions is that a few franchises were purchased from them, it's insufficient to help the reader more than letting the search function do its job. We shouldn't rush to redirect pages to pointless targets regardless of how helpful it will be, the search exists for a reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

[:1-1] "Edelweiss". Kotaku. 2022-04-08. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[:2-2] "Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Kotaku. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[3] "MangaGamer Announces Trial Version for Edelweiss". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[4] Sahdev, Ishaan (2010-02-21). "MangaGamer Annnounce Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Siliconera. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[5] H., A. (2012-10-12). "Edelweiss / Edelweiss: Eiden Fantasia (PC)". UK Anime Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]