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

OpenSpace3D

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

I'm having a difficult time finding sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. This is not, however, my area of expertise, so I would appreciate help in locating such sources, as much of it looks promotional. JTtheOG (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, Software, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found this, unfortunately that is all I could find and it still doesn't pass GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PK2 (file extension)

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

The article was deproded with the rationale to "merge as WP:ATD", but there is nothing to merge, given the article is unreferenced and irrelevant to a typical reader's understanding of the game. It is about a trivial subject that clearly fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at the only viable redirect target, Silkroad Online, and no reliable sources appear to exist to support its inclusion. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "PK2" extension seems be used by a few unrelated programs. Typically in an internal non-user-facing way. And that's also the case with Silkroad Online as far as I can see. It looks like the only people outside the developers who are even aware of the PK2 files are cheaters. I'd be very surprised if it turned out to be notable in any way. ApLundell (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catly

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

Seems heavily WP:TOOSOON. The vast majority of the article's content is about rumors that were debunked, so it reads like a false attack page (or maybe true, but still POV). There is almost no information about the gameplay, and RS are almost entirely about the controversy, therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE is failed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage is focused on a single aspect but is clearly significant; see WP:NTEMP. To me it passes GNG all the way. I have definite concerns about WP:DUE especially in the last paragraph, but this is not the place to hash that out. —Rutebega (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes the GNG. There's significant coverage between the announcement and the AI controversy, which I believe is what actually pushes it out of "too soon" territory. Coverage is coverage, whether it's "debunked" or not. The rest is just cleanup issues. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is not the only arbiter of whether something should have a page. If it cannot credibly indicate it is important, INDISCRIMINATE is failed. There is nothing indicating importance here, just rumors and speculation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AI coverage indicates importance. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough coverage in RS about the game, controversy or not, it's got articles about it in six or more sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 20 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]

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]

Abney317

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. All current references are either self-published (Twitch, Twitter), user-generated (YouTube), or directory-style listings (GDQ VODs). No independent media coverage or in-depth reporting has been found to establish notability. Subject appears notable only within a niche community. Leicesteroftime (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some better sources https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/521780-fastest-all-cups-completion-of-mario-kart-64

https://www.techeblog.com/mario-kart-64-skip-speedrun-bowsers-castle/

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/sep/29/play-it-faster-play-it-weirder-how-speedrunning-pushes-video-games-beyond-their-limits

https://kotaku.com/mario-kart-64-speedrunner-sets-new-world-record-by-repe-1846254228 ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources ILoveSmallEdits has provided above are better than those currently in the article, but still do not rise to meet WP:GNG. I've been unsuccessful in attempting to find any better sources. Weirdguyz (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dekete per nom. JuniperChill (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical games

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

Unfortunately fails WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:GNG. This is a tricky one. Let's go through it:

1) The article creator has an egregiously obvious WP:COI, authoring 8 of the 17 cited sources, including one source that is quoted substantially and summarised in-text. Significant parts of the article are uncited and pretty obviously coming from the author's philosophical opus.

2) The question then with WP:NEOLOGISM is: do the other sources define or discus a "philosophical game"? The nomenclature is not used in any of the other sources I can access. This suggests it is non-notable and a misguided attempt to cover a general exploration of philosophy as explored vastly through the lens of the video game medium rather than a clear treatment of "philosophical games" as a discrete category. It is just too broad. By the taxonomy given, most contemporary narrative video games might be said to have philosophical dilemmas and dimensions. The writing is a noble and good exercise. But a Wikipedia page is not the best outlet for that exercise, because ...

3) The article is inappropriate for encyclopedic coverage, waxing on like an WP:ESSAY instead of clearly and articulately defining the subject matter. This strongly suggests it's both an unfocused exercise of the article creator and not a concrete, definable subject matter worth encyclopedic definition. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:TNT. There are obvious WP:COI issues - you obviously can't write a WP page based on your own work fairly. Also many of the paragraphs are unreferenced suggesting WP:OR. There appear to be references but someone else needs to have a stab at writing this page. JMWt (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written like an essay. Might be notable under "Philosophy in video games" or something, but it would need a full rewrite regardless as it's currently unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – or maybe add (cleaned-up) content under some video game topic/article, esp b/c SEP (and other phil lit) uses games to mean the usual compsci/logic games (not video games). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete oh look another AI slop article Metallurgist (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Gas (video game)

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

Disputed PROD, but PROD did not give any reviews that might make the article pass WP:GNG. Unsourced and seems to completely fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are 3 external links listed in the article, but these sources are all directory-esque game listings, and there are no critics that have reviewed the game on those websites; only a few user-generated reviews are available.

As far as I can tell Allgame is the only source where a critic could've reviewed it (we'd need an archive to make sure since the website has been down for 11+ years), but I'm not sure if a single source reviewing it is enough to satisfy GNG. ApexParagon (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the All Game Guide source [1] and [2]. Not seeing anything else though. (nothing on Newspapers.com, Gale Research, etc) Timur9008 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not convinced there's enough coverage of this one to meet GNG. Nintendo Power reviewed it as part of a roundup of new games. Game Pro (UK) gave it a preview but it doesn't look like they reviewed it. Retro Gamer had a single screenshot of it! Adam Sampson (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict (video game)

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

Disputed PROD with the rationale that it had one review from Nintendo Power so other reviews must exist. However, besides the Nintendo Power review, and one review in Ultimate Nintendo: Guide to the NES Library, others in reliable sources don't seem to exist, so it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Unsourced since its inception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just about? I found a preview and lukewarm review in Famitsu; they named it in katakana as コンフリクト, so that might be a useful search term for other Japanese reviews. Adam Sampson (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good find. That said, the Nintendo Power mentions of that era almost seem like glorified advertisements, so I won't withdraw the AfD. WP:INDISCRIMINATE still seems problematic with regards to this game even if GNG may (possibly) be passed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the same concern about Nintendo Power - as Nintendo's own magazine, with Nintendo extracting licensing fees for anything published for the NES, they were clearly very reluctant to say anything negative about a game (in this case two of the Famitsu reviews complain about the game being slow-paced; the NP review mentions it but spins it as an advantage). I'd be happier if there was another more independent review out there. Adam Sampson (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Scoular

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

Only sources in article and found in WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE news clippings, with which one can only make little more than a database entry of statistics and not an encyclopedic article, thus failing WP:NOT. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 14:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Motorsport, Australia, and New Zealand. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 14:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 14:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Finished runner-up in a Formula Regional championship and a multiple-time race winner at Formula Three level—fairly notable as a junior driver. WP:SIGCOV is found here: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. There are several race reports at the level that go beyond trivial mentions. MB 2437 22:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make an SA table when a I'm home from work but many of these are interviews with the subject which would not be independent, and/or focus on other topics, such as the championship he's competing in, or the 00r0 Motorsport video game team. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not !voting until I read other opinions, but I think this is a good example of bare notability. Under different interpretations of WP:GNG, I think the big determining factor is whether or not interviews are considered as independent- I've heard differing opinions between AfD and AfC.

My source breakdown:

- Formula Scout [12], [13] I think are both GNG compliant, but are on the shorter side. Since it's the same outlet, we can count that as one source.

- VelocityNews article about going to Europe ([14]); I think this is GNG compliant, but others may have concerns about independence.

- NZ Herald [15]. I can't view this because of the paywall, but given that this is a notable organization (The New Zealand Herald), I'd assume it's good. However, I don't want to make assertions about it unless I can actually read it.

- Feeder Series interview [16], good if we are allowing interviews.

- Stuff comes from a notable outlet, but once again is an interview.

Main determining factor in my opinion is the NZ Herald article and whether or not interviews count as acceptable under GNG. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Include iRacing controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.249.120 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)~~ [reply]

This discussion belongs at Talk:Zack Scoular. MB 2437 21:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if hes not deleted, theres no reason not to add this to this persons wiki 76.90.212.34 (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo (YouTuber)

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

Currently zero in-depth references from reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual apparently has a lot of YouTube subscribers, but no indepth independent coverage Nayyn (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 4 is a RS, but mentions this person along with other winners. I'm not sure the award is notable either... In any case, the rest of the sources given are non-RS, or passing mentions. I don't see anything other than the sources already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No idea how to find Flamingo instead of flamingos, thus I couldn't find anything good either. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another common Roblox YouTuber. Nathannah • 📮 15:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would disagree; he has a top-of-the-year award. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally cited to one of his videos. A primary source. And knowing kids awards, they usually have ballot stuffing that would make Mike Lindell's head explode. Nathannah • 📮 18:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, no awards are cited to his videos. Flamingo (YouTuber)#Awards. Roblox is much bigger than a children's platform. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still thought of mainly as a place for children. Nathannah • 📮 22:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an award recognized by independent RS. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🤦🏻‍♀️ Then add that reliable source, please. It's currently sourced to his own video, which is wholly ineligible for use here. Nathannah • 📮 21:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Please point out where an award is sourced to his own video. From what I see, it's currently sourced to a subsidiary of VentureBeat—which is GRel—while even the award I didn't talk about is sourced to Roblox. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most subscribed Roblox YouTuber of all time, actually. Blubewwy (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That absolutely needs a proper and neutral source, and no YouTube is not a source. I'm not including links to our sourcing guidelines because I just like seeing things in blue. 22:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 22:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Believe me, I have tried to find sourcing for him before. For a while there I always viewed him as one of the higher end gaming YouTubers that didn't have an article. But that's for good reason. Hopefully one day it works out but for now he fails notability. λ NegativeMP1 15:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore back to draft. I'm pretty sure the article was moved to mainspace by someone who didn't even actually submit it to be reviewed first, so it was not ready for mainspace at all. Let it go back to being a draft so sources can continue to be gathered. Blubewwy (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
drafty/do not delete; I don't want this deleted just turn to draft instead. freesucrose (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a draft article verson of the page, but the main space page should definitely be deleted since YouTubers are rarely notable. 2600:1700:6180:6290:E84C:192:F4EB:AF1E (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YouTubers are rarely notable. I don't see any reliable sources in the article. 2600:1700:6180:6290:E84C:192:F4EB:AF1E (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — a lot of primary non-reliable sources are his only coverage. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no reliable sources and the ones that are lack information for it to be an independent article. LazarEpic (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As above comments have mentioned, not many secondary/reliable sources for the subject and those that are lack significant information about them. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Little sigcov outside primary sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mycat

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

Seems to be a clearly self-promotional page created by a WP:SPA that handily fails WP:NBIO, and the author has been demonstrating WP:OWN behavior by reverting any tags applied to the article, so I was forced to bring it to people's attention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, definitely doesn't pass notability. This page reads more like a software index than any sort of page with value to an encyclopedia. And my own WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything. λ NegativeMP1 15:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Vegantics (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve AJ Broad. Author should use WP:DRAFT instead of creating similar articles. IgelRM (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 01:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The page now only contains relevant information to fulfil the broken link that links to the page from the ZX Spectrum games list. Better to have something on the end of the link than to have a worthless blank page right? Cheers! Wiper2001 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how notability works. Not all red linked pages are notable, sometimes editors link to blatantly non-notable subjects. In that case you should just remove the link. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixonic

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

Apparently only has 2 games according to their website. Fails WP:Company. Open to a Merge with My.Games and placing it in a new subsidiaries section. If it's parent company is not notable, then delete this and I will consider a discussion on the parent company. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Cyprus, Netherlands, and Russia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with My.Games. I personally am 50/50 on whether that article's subject is notable, but it needs a major rewrite anyway. If My.Games is notable, then I doubt Pixonic would be under WP:INHERITORG. Merging the two articles (and expanding coverage using reliable sources) may help ascertain notability. Gommeh 🎮 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Abandonware games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Abandonware" is a loaded term. Strictly defined it means software that is not presently being sold directly by a publisher, but it is used solely in the defense of software piracy, with the connotation that all such software is "abandoned" and copyright restrictions no longer apply to it (which is completely untrue). If that were the only problem we could just rename the category "Video games not presently being sold directly by a publisher", but the category is also excessively large and impractical to keep up-to-date, especially because the removal of a game from the marketplace is rarely accompanied by any sort of announcement. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With that rationale, we could nominate Category:Indie games too? It needs strict criteria but deletion seems too much, Keep. IgelRM (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NONDEF. Also too overly broad as a secondary concern. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Although this category currently includes two of my favourite games of all time, labelling them "abandonware" is unfortunately subjective. It may be de facto true that the original owner will not do anything to invest in developing or supporting game anymore, but that doesn't mean that legally speaking it is now fair game (pun intended) to throw the source code online for old fans to enjoy (even though I'm strongly inclined to condone that if the owner makes no effort to make money off of it anymore, e.g. by putting it on Steam; I hardly regard it as "piracy" when you make practically impossible for willing consumers to give you money). I don't think the size of the category is a problem, nor that it cannot meet WP:DEFINING; it just cannot be given an objective definition of "abandonment" in anything other than practical and financial terms. But without legal terms, there is no clear threshold. NLeeuw (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Combo

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lots of WP:REFBOMBing, but significant coverage is insufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and New York. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see why this would make it required to delete, an indie game studio has enough merit to have a wikipage 2A02:E040:14FD:8E00:2829:3F26:6013:AE55 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article and subject matter is of notability as they not only have a long game log but have infact caused a whole type of horror game to become a mainstay, heck there stuff is even on the switch. they have plenty of sources listed and the article itself seams well written and in-depth so i don't get what your issue is? 93.107.85.135 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated on the rationale, "Fails WP:NCORP". Something having many sources or being long and detailed does not mean those sources amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. A company making numerous notable games also does not mean they themselves are notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This is a common misunderstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry but i have to vote to keep the page live. There are various sources on the Puppet Combo page that are noteworthy and gives the page a leg to stand on. Granted, the page could be better structured but i believe someone with interest about Puppet Combo will improve the page. That is just my opinion. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to state what WP:THREE sources you believe give the article standalone notability, so this comes off as less WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my observation, i saw these sources which give Puppet Combo a leg to stand on: Destructoid; Rock, Paper, Shotgun, VG247, IGN, Vice, The Verge, and PC Gamer. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely for WP:NCORP but perhaps it could be changed to WP:NARTIST. IgelRM (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing sources in article, borrowing table from WP:SIRS:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?^[A]	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
(1) Game Rant PS1 graphics game list	Maybe	Yes	Maybe	Yes	N	Debatable significance (three sentences about company but many list entries of their games)
(2) NME interview	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	YMMV on whether interviews count as secondary, but plenty of non-quoted, reliable, independent material here
(3) Bloody Disgusting interview	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	N	Another interview, but almost entirely quotes from Cocuzza
(4) Lunchmeat VHS interview	Yes	Yes	Maybe	No	N	Promo tone but not explicitly an ad, but almost entirely quotes
(5) Dread Central article on Sanitarium Massacre	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Only one mention of Pig Farmer Games
(6) Bloody Disgusting article on Sanitarium Massacre	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Only mentions PFG once
(7) Bloody Disgusting playthrough of Halloween	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Brief mention of PFG, mostly about the playthrough
(8) Bloody Disgusting article on Babysitter Bloodbath	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Mostly about BB, only one mention of PFG
(9) TV Obsessive article on lo-fi horror	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Four paras on Puppet Combo and their games, website is small online mag with many writers + backing uncontroversial claims
(10) GameSpew interview	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	N	Mostly quotes again, claims are uncontroversial
(11) Kill Screen VHS horror list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Sigcov of Power Drill Massacre but no mention of Puppet Combo directly
(12) Kill Screen article on Power Drill Massacre	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Two quotes from Cocuzza but otherwise all secondary, sigcov of Puppet Combo and Power Drill Massacre
(13) Vulture article on low-res indie horror	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention of Power Drill Massacre and only photo credit mentions Puppet Combo
(14) Kill Screen Halloween game list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One para on Power Drill Massacre, no mention of Puppet Combo in prose
(15) The Verge article on Patreon for game devs	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One sentence about Puppet Combo, Feed Me, Billy!, and their Patreon
(16) Destructoid review of Nun Massacre	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y?	Sigcov of game (2 paras) and some coverage of company; per WP:DESTRUCTOID, reviews are okay with attribution
(17) Bloody Disgusting announcement for Nun Massacre	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y?	Short article but mentions Puppet Combo and the style of their games in 2/3 paras
(18) GameSpew review of Nun Massacre	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Legit review but only mentions Puppet Combo once in passing
(19) Vice 2018 horror games article	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Three paras about PC and its games; well-researched article despite WP:VICE's ambiguity, used to verify its own quote
(20) Rock Paper Shotgun review of The Glass Staircase	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Three mentions of Puppet Combo, but all in passing and in reference to the game
(21) Destructoid console announcement for Murder House	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	By former Destructoid EIC; a couple of sentences specifically about Puppet Combo, but mostly about Murder House
(22) Bloody Disgusting podcast episode on Murder House	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Half of the prose on page is in-depth about Puppet Combo; could not find working link for podcast episode
(23) Kotaku review of Murder House	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	WP:RSOPINION for reliability; all mentions of Puppet Combo are about Murder House
(24) The A.V. Club 2021 horror games list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention
(25) VG247 best horror games list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Two short sentences about Puppet Combo
(26) Comicbook.com Murder House announcement	No	Yes	Maybe	Yes	N	Brief, passing mentions of Puppet Combo
(27) Bloody Disgusting console announcement for Murder House	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Short article with two passing mentions of Puppet Combo, mostly about Murder House
(28) Destructoid article on Murder House icon	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Uncontroversial, properly sourced claims, but few mentions of Puppet Combo
(29) Kotaku article on Murder House icon	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Same as above
(30) Destructoid review of Christmas Massacre	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Sigcov of game and company; see ref 16 for Destructoid review reliability
(31) Bloody Disgusting 2021 list of best horror games	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention of Christmas Massacre
(32) IGN best PC horror games list	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Three paras exclusively on Puppet Combo as a whole
(33) CogConnected article on Stay Out of the House	No	Yes	Maybe	Yes	N	Not much about Puppet Combo; website is iffy but author wrote for RSes like Pocket Gamer and ref just verifies game's existence
(34) Indie Ranger press release on Tonight It Follows	No	No	Maybe	Yes	N	Press release written on blog by college student; verifies mostly uncontroversial claims about start of Puppet Combo Presents
(35) The Verge article on lo-fi horror	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention of PC starting Torture Star Video
(36) Destructoid review of Bloodwash	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	A few short sentences about Puppet Combo
(37) Survival Horror Downloads 2021 list of best horror games	No	Yes	No	Yes	N	Puppet Combo only mentioned by name; comes from blog and has no author
(38) PC Gamer review of Bloodwash	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Never mentions Puppet Combo, credits TSV with images
(39) Itch.io page for Scary Tales Vol. 1	No	No	Yes	No	N	Self-published, only about game
(40) Patreon page for The Summoning	—	No	Yes	No	N	Self-published and also locked behind subscription wall
(41) Patreon page for Bloodwash	—	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 40
(42) Patreon page for The Booty Creek Cheek Freak	—	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 40
(43) Patreon page for Ding Dong Dead	—	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 40
(44) Puppet Combo tweet about No One Lives Under the Lighthouse	No	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 39

The rest of the refs are all Twitter links, so refer back to ref 39 for those. As the creator of this article, I tried to be as objective as I could about things, but if anyone thinks I mischaracterized anything, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I think this shows that there are more than enough sources available in the article now that allow for it to remain. I've also found more recent refs that I can link below if necessary. (Also, I agree with IgerRM's comment about the article being more in line with WP:ARTIST, since WP:NCORP states that it applies to a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose and Puppet Combo is just Cocuzza.) benǝʇᴉɯ 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Click on link to see mentions in reliability lists

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Benmite what is the verdict after the source analysis? Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Sorry, yes, my vote is to keep. benǝʇᴉɯ 00:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Benmite: One problem with the "Puppet Combo is just Cocuzza" argument is that as a studio, it has published a number of horror games by other developers. That makes it more than just a single artist's pseudonym, but a full-on development and publishing company. As such, perhaps we can reach an agreement that the page be moved to Ben Cocuzza instead if the AfD is withdrawn, and having it be solely focused on him. I would agree that Cocuzza probably passes WP:NARTIST, but still disagree that the studio is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note to admins that User:Benmite is the article creator here, so I would assume they purposely avoided giving a !vote because it would be a given in this situation and not count towards consensus. They just wanted to demonstrate their own analysis of the sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 21 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.[17][18][19] 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]

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]

Zoë Mode

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

Contested PROD; company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are trivial announcements or press releases and do not reach the level necessary to indicate this is a notable game developer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 13 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) 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kuju Entertainment per WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 23:35, 19 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) 12:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kuju Entertainment. Coverage is extremely brief. —Rutebega (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Daddy Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Attempts to delete/redirect were reversed multiple times, so an AfD is required under policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Washington. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was there discussion of a redirect? What did a BEFORE find? Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was attempted to be redirected to 2K Games. It gets a brief mention there, too brief to really merit even a redirect IMO, but it could be valid if people believe it's necessary. None of the people who recreated the article demonstrated any sources, and were largely WP:SPA editors who may have been doing it for promotional reasons, nor could I find any non-trivial sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To either 2K (company) or Take-Two Interactive. Doesn't matter in my opinion since they both wind up at the same place. Regardless of how many games it has developed, it is still a company and would be required to meet WP:NCORP by way of WP:CORPDEPTH-type coverage. I am not finding any. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are two different suggested target articles. Which one is preferred?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2K (company)#Studios. Subject is more closely related to 2K than Take-Two in general. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfire Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP - there is very little about the studio that isn't related to the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is notable, which it may very well be, it can have its own article, which is common on Wikipedia, such as Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. and similar pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 11 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) 00:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This statement implies that Wolfire only has notability because of a lawsuit vs Valve.

However, Wolfire are notable for the first era of Humble Bundle, https://www.gamesindustry.biz/wolfire-games-making-a-success-of-the-humble-indie-bundle

On top of that, their games have a cult classic status with their own notable stories that are related to developer action. Such as Lugaru having it's source made open and subsequently being uploaded to the iOS store and the developers sharing what it was like to be in such a situation (https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App-Store-developing/ Primary Source: https://www.vg247.com/lugaru-clone-pulled-from-app-store-free-upgrades-to-hd-version-offered) while reciever broke into the wider world asking questions about when gun games were simulated too well (https://www.wired.com/story/receiver-2-videogame-violence/)

While induvidually they might be absorbed into another article, together the Valve Lawsuit, Humble Bundle, and their own games aren't connected by anything more than the company and so the page should be expanded to include summaries of their involvement and a "See more" link to the relative pages Skollivoxel (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The presented sources, source 1 appears to be largely about the Humble Bundle rather than Wolfire themselves. Lugaru/Receiver seem to be notable, but notability is not WP:INHERITED from a studio's games, so that argument you are making will not fly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, for example Valve got their notability from the Half-Life series *before* the invention of the Steam platform. Creators get notability directly from their creations. 97.114.171.40 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having press outlets start paying attention to them and write WP:RS about them should be distinguished from simply "assuming" they are notable because one of their games is. You'd think that if Wolfire gained such notability after they released these various games, someone would write directly about them. They largely didn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well now we seem to be back on the circle, you see above that there's a wired article about the sequel game to Receiver, how much press coverage counts? Is it some arbitrarily set number: no. Other than the abundance of video essays, viral videos, and mods for games inspired by mechanics established in their creations establishing their notoriety; The fact it's not just "one of their games" that's notable is why it's not assumption. They have established their name within several series and achievements throughout their existence. Game developers gain notoriety by making games that are acclaimed in the community, and the active participation of said community. This would be like making the claim that Running With Scissors is notable only because of the controversies they have in the press, and not the games themselves. 97.114.171.40 (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read notability guidelines on Wikipedia at WP:NCORP. None of what you are describing is how articles on Wikipedia become notable. Only reliable sources about the company itself, nothing else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is currently written, I do think its a bit weak on secondary and independent sources, however I don't believe [Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]] is written such that the lawsuit alone would exclude Wolfire from having their own article. That being said, I do believe there are more sources that could be added to this article to make is even stronger. The Game Developer article https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/video-an-indie-approach-to-procedural-animation seems to be a great example of a notable source that should be added and included in this article, rather than deleting the article all together. NovaAmm (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Developer article merely highlights a talk given by Rosen at the publication's parent, GDC. I would consider a redirect to Humble Bundle, with the current state of the article. IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 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) 01:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries (series)

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

Fails WP:GNG, a "series" with only 2 games. Any information about the cancelled games can probably be merged into Mercenaries 2 or Pandemic Studios. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cancelled sequels info to Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. The lead in that article already mentions Mercs Inc so a "Sequels" section could be created and the info merged there. --Mika1h (talk) 16:43, 13 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!} 23:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blacknorth

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Major lack of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, Companies, and Ireland. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen much worst, but the citations are inconsistent. Not sure if this is worth an attempt at a rescue. I'd like to know if anyone has ideas for ATD. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if their film (Here to Fall) is notable it's possible to redirect there and smerge a short blurb. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. To my mind, and while the subject org may have a claim to some notability (as it appears to have been covered in local and industry news), it is difficult to look past the COI/SPA issues, clear inaccuracies (like conflating Kids Emmys and Childrens BAFTAs with their "non-kids" equivalents), and overtly promotional intent (and apparent WP:REFBOMBing) in the article's initial creation. To the extent that perhaps WP:STARTOVER is the best approach. Guliolopez (talk) 21:19, 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) 20:42, 17 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]

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]

Big Robot

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. As its PROD was contested years ago, I am forced to nominate it for deletion. Jim Rossignol is a possible merge target, though it is also unclear whether that page is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE - The prod was removed due to my comment on the notability. [20] It had multiple mentions in national and international news sites, including The Guardian, PC Gamer and Channel 4 Education's website, as noted on the PROD placer's page. The consensus was to remove the PROD. Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all met.

If notability fails, I would think merging with Sir, You Are Being Hunted was more applicable than pure deletion. If deletion is the way, please place in my personal space so I can archinve before deletion if possible. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires more than just a trivial mention. Simple mentions in the media do not fulfill significant coverage. If there is significant coverage you are free to link to it, but the used sources appear to be about a specific game. BTW, I am not suggesting that Fallen City isn't notable and it very well might be, but notability isn't inherited from that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Sir, You Are Being Hunted wouldn't work so well since they also developed The Signal From Tolva. There isn't an obvious single locale for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlitWorks

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

Besides the Hobby Consolas piece, this company would seem to lack enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NCORP. Possible COI concerns with the article's creator so they may not have considered notability when making the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Spain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feature on co-founder Miguel Ángel Horna from Vandal, Blitworks "joining" Larian Studios from Game Developer. IgelRM (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just move it to draftspace, it's better to improve a created article than to create the same article that was deleted

⟨⟨BeastBoy-X-Talk!⟩⟩ 16:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Just make it a draft" doesn't work when it will never be notable. Larian Studios is a possible merge target though since BlitWorks became Larian Barcelona. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 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) 05:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KiriKiri

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable engine subject to a previous redirect from this deletion discussion: [21]. The sources - many pasted as bare links, do not demonstrate significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP I really don't vibe with the idea that you can collect coverage in random research papers not primarily about the subject, particularly a student's Bachelors thesis, and say this amounts to notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching in Japanese revealed a instructional book. IgelRM (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of visual novel engines – Where the engine is mentioned and its most important points can be listed. Svartner (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also fine with a merge if it will result in consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:22, 21 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!} 06:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of visual novel engines: Seems like a more appropriate page to cover this. Several of the sources in this article are already present there. MidnightMayhem 21:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stormind Games

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

I believe it clearly fails WP:NCORP. This is the closest thing to SIGCOV I can find (though, ironically, not used in the article at all), but other than that it appears to be entirely trivial or not fulfilling WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited from a company's games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 2 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) 08:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some other useful articles. [22] [23] [24] [25][26]. Are they helping? Thank you EneaCirce (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The repubblica/italian.tech article looks on the edge of the criteria. Generally, 3 sources in-line with the guidelines are necessary. IgelRM (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see this discussion for further context. Noteworth bits include the article creator having a WP:COI and generally getting advice and getting some general advice that this probably isn't meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, neither of which prevented the draft getting published apparently. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the notability criteria for companies is stricter than the games they produced, given that they have their own notability criteria, but not for games. Or maybe its just that they don't really write about the company and focus on games instead. I'm surprised that it even went thru AfC and expected that reviewers should accept drafts that have a good change to not be nominated for (or survive an) AfD. I've been a reviewer since the start of the year. JuniperChill (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the criteria are exactly the same for companies and their games. NCORP is just a specific way of applying GNG, making it more clear what is and isn't significant coverage. The issue is that games are more notable than companies, because most companies only matter in a rather geographically confined area or employ a very small amount of people, whereas the games are distributed globally and get the coverage that entails. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 3 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!} 06:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The previous history mentioned by Sergecross73 doesn't inspire confidence either. IgelRM (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP, with very little in the way of significant coverage besides a Planet Half-Life profile. I am nominating this for AfD due to a previous discussion that resulted in a merge here, so it can't be said not to be "controversial". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm a bit on the fence with this one. While there isn't much coverage specifically about the company itself, they appear to be a significant developer in gaming history. Their games have received substantial coverage, which, in my view, supports a keep.Darkm777 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NARTIST can sometimes allow for that, but companies do not fall under that and are required to pass WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. This is not a case where notability is inherited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen64 has details on their last game "They Hunger: Lost Souls", I would consider a merge/redirect to List of Source mods. IgelRM (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a company and reviews of their games do not grant WP:INHERENT notability. I cannot find coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT but willing to review again if anyone can point out the WP:THREE. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Black Widow Games is one of the oldest modding groups in the history of modern gaming history. Their works have both recieved press coverage and to my knowledge, have even been cited in a book dedicated to culture and videogame innovation. I think with all this combined, it warrants a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemStoppingBy (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote. As requested previously with others, can you name the WP:THREE. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Chapter 6 of Dr. Dennis Redmond’s *Satellite Uplink*, and his dissertation

An extensive analytical essay that profiles Black Widow Games in-depth. Satellite Uplink, Chapter 6 (https://web.archive.org/web/20150926231928/http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/PP6.html). Later cited twice in Dr. Redmond’s PhD dissertation, Videogame Culture as Transnational Media: One Neoliberalism, Many Resistances (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, pp. 69 & 322) (https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/42310).

2. Planet Half-Life’s Five Days of Fear

A five-part, multi-page deep dive by GameSpy’s Planet Half-Life writer John “Chief” Philips. Covers the company’s 1997 origins, accomplishments, interviews with Einar Saukas & Neil Manke, and the future of “They Hunger: Lost Souls.” (Note: Page 2 of both “Day 3” & “Day 5” are missing from archive.) (https://web.archive.org/web/20121107001442/http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=1).

3. TheGamer — “Sony Once Commissioned A Half-Life Mod To Promote The First Underworld Movie — And It Was Amazing”

A retrospective by Eric Switzer about how Sony Pictures commissioned Black Widow Games to create an official tie-in mod for the Underworld movie. (https://www.thegamer.com/half-life-mod-underworld-bloodline-history-vampire-the-masquerade-bloodhunt/).

4. Honorary 4th — Extensive PC Gamer Coverage.

- USS Darkstar & They Hunger episodes 1–3 featured on demo discs packaged (Issues #63, #69, #75, #85; 1999–2001).

- They Hunger included in PC Gamer’s *“10 Scariest PC Games Ever”* (Issue #103; Nov 2002, p. 102).

- They Hunger: Lost Souls featured in behind-the-scenes articles and a two-page spread (Issues #157 & #162; 2007–2008).

For an early Half-Life modding studio — though niche — I feel the amount and quality of sourcing here exceeds what is often seen for similar topics or even more niche topics that survive AfD scrutiny. The combination of academic, industry, and mainstream retrospective coverage clearly demonstrates that Black Widow Games has received significant, independent, reliable coverage and therefore merits a standalone article under WP:GNG. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a decent argument here that Neil Manke is notable per WP:NARTIST as the studio's creator and game designer. Especially since he is largely referred to by name in that first source. Not sure I'm convinced the studio is though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While yes, Manke is integral to the Black Widow Games story (as it dissolved when he disappeared); Einar Saukas, Magnus Jansén, Jack Cooper, Paul Taylor, and Dave Waters are also mentioned further down in the first link’s text as they worked with Manke in the “They Hunger” and a number of other projects.

They are also mentioned in the Planet Half-Life’s interviews along with their new talent. These folks would’ve been involved in Link #3’s project as that was the last published project Black Widow Games made (and were later involved with “They Hunger: Lost Souls”). MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I simply disagree that thee sources show notability for Black Widow Games. From being about the games they made to only being about a single one of the devs, these exemplify the incorrect notion that "notability is inherited". It's possible that Niel Manke or more of the devs who worked for Black Widow Games pass WP:NARTIST, but that has no bearing on this discussion and another page should be created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCESEXIST. Simply believing they exist will not magically will them into existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — In continuance and conclusion with my discussion with Zxcvbnm — WP:GNG and WP:NCORP ask whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources — and the cited sources clearly profile Black Widow Games as a collective entity.

Three of the four sources provided dedicate sections specifically to the studio itself. Dr. Redmond’s text, while focusing in part on Neil Manke’s design philosophy, makes it clear it is within his capacity of Black Widow Games, referring to the full lineup at the time and later citing the studio by name in his dissertation. Planet Half-Life’s Five Days of Fear series interviews every then-member of Black Widow Games and their approach to They Hunger: Lost Souls, along with previously documenting its the studios’ history, not to mention Planet Half-Life covered Black Widow Games many times. PC Gamer likewise featured behind-the-scenes coverage of the studio in issues #157 and #162 in the same capacity to Five Days of Fear.

This level of coverage clearly exceeds the threshold set by WP:NCORP and satisfies WP:GNG; Again. I feel this level of coverage here exceeds what could normally be asked of such an early creator in the mod scene— The combination of academic, industry, and mainstream retrospective coverage clearly demonstrates that Black Widow Games has received significant, independent, reliable coverage that should warrant keeping despite AfD scrutiny. So I ask that you and CNMall41 re-examine and re-evaluate your votes based on this information extending beyond the claim of inherited notability as there are very few groups like this that can claim notability to warrant an article. But this as I outlined, should be one of them as it provides an outlier to many firsts in the larger context of video game modding history. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"provides an outlier to many firsts" appears rather WP:Original research. But perhaps there is something to merge to video game modding? IgelRM (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:original research— I am pulling from TheGamers article and the Planet Half-Life history recap. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bull

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

Fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV. All the sources currently on the page that aren't to, like, youtube videos are very short and barely talk about him. From google there's a Forbes WP:INTERVIEW but that's all I found. I like the guy's music but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am familiar with DB from Epic Rap Battles of History. From an inspection of the references, there appear to be many from YouTube and X, which are not reliable and violate WP:RS/PS. I am uncertain how to vote for now, so I will wait for others to give their opinions before settling on a vote. 11WB (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a feature from Huck (magazine). IgelRM (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aside from the aforementioned Forbes article and piece in Huck Magazine I've found a short piece in Vice and an interview in Tubefilter, additionally it's a dead link but existing references in the article to Metro and a short piece from Computerandvideogames, all of which are notable outlets with their own articles. Aside from those, coverage of his work in TheNextWeb, an interview in Gizorama and an article from 2012 in VentureBeat. As much as a few of these aren't amazing sources (some veer into failing WP:INTERVIEW) I think there's enough here to suggest notability. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- forbes and huck -> interviews
- vice -> 3 paragraphs hardly in-depth coverage
- tubefilter is also an interview
- the metro article has half a paragraph on him
- computerandvideogames -> two very short paragraphs
- thenextweb is mainly about the video not dan bull, like 2 paragraphs mention him and only as the creator of this video basically
- gizorama maybe you meant to link to something else he's not mentioned?
- venturebeat is again not really about dan but a video he made
The only significant coverage is from interviews which aren't secondary or independent of the subject TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While 2-3 paragraphs may not be in-depth coverage on their own, I wouldn't call them insignificant. It is a start, and if he's significant enough to be interviewed on several separate occasions, then it stands to reason that there may be more out there. Here are some other potential sources I found excluding several smaller mentions I skipped over which included an NYT article and an Indian business magazine:
https://aestheticamagazine.com/youtube-killed-the-video-star/

https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=8OGE.7E66604B.0D14FB4B&site=eds-live&scope=site

https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=59691139&site=eds-live&scope=site
Also, surprisingly enough, he might meet WP:NMG, but I'd love to here from someone more familiar with those guidelines.

- Ike Lek (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure how I've managed to link the wrong Gizorama article; meant to link this - again an interview, but as Ike Lek says, it's a start. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A further review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Epic Rap Battles of History; Aesthetica source looks fine, others don't appear to add much. IgelRM (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That merge or redirect would likely be confusing, as he was only a guest in that series to the best of my knowledge. Ike Lek (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, perhaps just a redirect although even that might be confusing. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirct per IgelRM. Subject doesn't really have its own WP:SIGCOV outside of the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read above? I do think a merge could be confusing as Ike Lek said. IgelRM (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try for a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment another participant had mentioned WP:NMG so I did a bit of digging. I found this article https://creativecommons.org/2012/05/02/musician-dan-bull-reaches-9-on-uk-indie-charts-using-cc0/ which suggests he might have charted with his song "Sharing is Caring". I have verified this information on the official website https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/23523/dan-bull/ but I'll need another opinion as to whether those subcharts would merit notability under criteria 2. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 23:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Keep: With several songs in specialist national WP:GOODCHARTS, a segment on national television [27] and [28] where a reliable source is calling him one of the "internet's biggest names", a Toronto Star pick, and the multiple non-trivial coverage identified above, just about enough the presume a Keep - particularly if all the sources are combined per WP:BASIC. Furthermore there is secondary coverage in WP:RS interview articles with a depth of preparation, then per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability that bylined coverage may count towards notability. ResonantDis_tortion 12:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The song “Sharing is Caring” charted in British Hip Hop and R&B Singles charts in 2012, but that isn't criteria 2 "national music chart". I don't think "The 50 Funniest Moments of 2012" and Rich Fulcher "media mashups" are particular relevant. The Toronto Star video is more specifically about Lily Allen. IgelRM (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Bull charted on the UK Hip Hop and R&B Singles and Albums Charts, and twice on the UK Independent Singles and Albums Charts; both national charts but speciality as I indicated above; not slamdunk conclusive on their own but a good indication of WP:MBIO nonetheless. There is a biography on laut.de which is trending reliable per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#laut.de. Furthermore Game Informer, which is an WP:VG/RS, has a bylined article calling the subject "the Mike Skinner of video games". There are further coverage in articles such as [29] and [30] and [31]. With all the sources identified above, such as [32] and [33] and [34], coupled with the charting, there does appear sufficient non-trivial coverage to build an article and presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

[1] Click on link to see mentions in reliability lists

[A]