Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also Games-related deletions.

[edit]

GeneRally

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
GeneRally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article doesn't cite anything that would establish notability. The article was previously deleted in 2008. toweli (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How (video game)

[edit]
How (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cites almost entirely primary sources, fails WP:GNG. This game isn't notable at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an IP editor removed the notability template with some anecdote in 2012. IgelRM (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cheat Expert

[edit]
Anti-Cheat Expert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. If sources are found, please ping me. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://intl.anticheatexpert.com/#/index (the official website-English version)
https://fairplayalliance.org/members/ (showing as a member of fair play alliance as many other notable gaming companies)
https://anticheatexpert.com/#/index (official Chinese website showing that ACE has passed ISO 27001 and ISO 27701)
https://www.cbinsights.com/company/anti-cheat-expert (introduction from cbinsights) Yogurt moon123 (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tencent per zh:游戏安全专家. IgelRM (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Half-Life

[edit]
Planet Half-Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not verifiable and doesn't appear notable. Unsure if it is different from Gamespy's other Planet Network websites, maybe merge to GameSpy. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Flash Element TD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skycoach

[edit]
Skycoach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, fails WP:NCORP. Sources are reprints of press releases. ~ A412 talk! 00:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written entirely from sources. Sources talk about news about the platform's activities, it is usually. All the facts that are in the article find confirmation in open independent sources. Jane230 (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dokibird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This streamer does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The Siliconera sources are WP:ROUTINE, trivial, and based off of primary sources. The Japan Times and Polygon sources are based off of tweets and leverage notability from a corporate controversy. Doing a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing else of use. Relisting this deletion discussion since the last one did not get much attention. Sparkltalk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. This article was just at AFD two months ago, why was a new discussion started up so soon? We advise more time between visits to AFD unless the content is severely problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfree

[edit]
Butterfree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a fan of the original 151 Pokemon and someone who enjoyed Bye Bye, Butterfree myself, I went over the sources carefully as I really want this to be notable. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem that way at all and it doesn't feel like the article's recreation was justified. Arguably its best source is from CBR, which is considered "unreliable" post 2016. Everything else is pretty trivial, about the episode rather than the Pokemon itself, or from large general lists of Pokemon which don't indicate that particular one is uniquely notable. Even with the paper comparing bug Pokemon to real-world insects, I am not convinced GNG is passed here. I realize I may get hit with the "you nominated it the day it was recreated" argument, but the article did not have an "under construction" banner so I must assume that the creator believes it is in a finished state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being about the episode does not mean that notability cannot be gleaned for Butterfree from the discussion of the episode and commentary on Butterfree's role in it. The Gamer discusses Ash's relationship with Butterfree and what its return could symbolize, and simply being a part of a greater article does not mean that the discussion of the urban legend surrounding it and Venonat is not a demonstration of notability (per WP:GNG). The fact that the episode is a large part of why people talk about Butterfree so much is immaterial to the fact that they do. There is also commentary on Butterfree's role in the game as an early evolver, as was it the subject of commentary as being Ash's first Pokémon caught. I also added this article, which discusses extensively Butterfree's relationship with Ash in the anime. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Butterfree per nom - Most of the sources are game guides, extremely trivial mentions, and content-farm style "Top Ten" lists. The few that look half-way decent are just reviews/summaries of a handful of specific episodes of the anime that featured Ash's Butterfree, with no real discussion about the actual fictional species, and even those are not from the most reliable of sources. I also have to mention that there looks to be quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBing going on here. I already mentioned the trivial nature of the coverage of Butterfree in a lot of the included references, but some of these are literally one sentence mentions of that Pokemon and some, such as the first and fourth ones currently listed, don't mention Butterfree at all. Overall, I am not seeing anything to justify this specific Pokemon being split out into an independent article, and should be Redirected to its section at the Gen I Pokemon list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to make the point that the sources you're referring to as not mentioning Butterfree are only used to verify basic information about what a Pokémon is, how they work, and how the games work. Not mentioning Butterfree does not make them not useful for this article, and the same citations are used on Raichu, a featured article. As far as top 10 lists go, there is nothing to suggest that merely being in a top 10 list makes coverage less significant. The Gamer, Crunchyroll, and the entomologist all provide significant coverage on the subject, even if Butterfree is not the main subject of their respective works. In the latter's case, they may be analyzing the Bug type as a whole, but they do not give each Pokémon equal weight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, sources not mentioning the subject can be useful for an article, but they also do nothing to help establish any notability for the subject, which is the issue at stake here. Its the sheer number of references being used here that either don't mention Buterfree or have a one-sentence namedrop that gives the impression of a WP:REFBOMB. As far as "Top Ten" style lists go, putting aside the fact that these are often from content farms that are generally not considered reliable sources, they also generally do not actually contain significant coverage. Take the IGN list included here, for example - its three sentences long, and its "coverage" of Butterfree is simply "Bye Bye Butterfree was sad", which is not significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? No one claimed those sources showed notability, they're there to verify facts, how is this refbombing in any capacity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that is the first two points of the WP:REFBOMB essay - an overkill of citations that briefly namecheck the subject without actually being about the subject, and citations that don't mention the subject and are presented to verify a fact that is not related to the subject's notability. Keep in mind that WP:REFBOMB is just an essay, not a policy - I am simply using it to demonstrate the larger issue - the fact that so many trivial citations are needed to be used to try to provide references for the article shows the lack of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow Buttefree to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rorshacma: Something I feel needs clarification, by the "first and fourth one", are you talking about the references in the article itself or the reception section? Because references 1 and 4 are part of the "copypasta" used in these articles to establish terminology and context to the reader.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kung Fu Man:Yeah, I'm talking about the "copypasta" part that just has the general overview of what a Pokémon is. Which, yeah, I understand is needed for context, but still means about 7 of the citations in this article are not about the subject of the article, which combined with the fact that another 8 are of the "single word mentions" variety means that the article has a lot of citations - but more than half are not actually on the subject of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rorshacma: That doesn't constitute a refbomb in this case though, that's a section agreed upon after multiple discussions at WT:VGCHAR to help readers understand these articles, and survived the FAC process just fine. Holding them against an article like this is realistically pretty unfair, as refbombing revolves around unnecessary sources in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. I apologize, as I did not mean it to be a slight against the editors of the article or to imply any intentional wrongdoing on their part. It was mainly just to preempt the argument I occasionally see pop up in AFDs where someone will cite the number of references in an article as evidence of notability, without examining the amount of coverage of the topic in those references. It was basically just me saying "despite the number of sources present, the coverage of the subject within a lot of them is not significant". I'll try to use better wording in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an aside, is there any reason why CBR is unreliable in a way that other Valnet sources are not? I believe that general consensus is that being owned by Valnet is not disqualifying, and the article used here was published prior to CBR's layoffs and use of AI. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 30#Comic Book Resources, it seems to be due to a significant degradation of content compared to their old self, and the fact they didn't cover video game subjects until after Valnet bought them, which, additionally, was when their old staff practically all left the moment Valnet bought them. Admittedly I do feel I disagree in its complete unreliability, since it's about equal in terms of quality to the usual Game Rant/Screen Rant, but that was the rationale provided during its initial discussion. I feel if its status should be debated, another discussion at the Sources page would be warranted, but that is likely outside the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think a key thing being missed here is the wording "generally" vs strictly unreliable. We've had discussions regarding Valnet afterward that are visible in the archives on the subject of editorial pieces, where the concerns with CBR were strictly about churnalism and AI usage accusations (the latter of which Valnet confirmed they have no plans to use). The article cited here however is an editorial opinion piece, and should be fine for usage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While I would appreciate stronger sourcing, I feel what's here shows some potential avenues of discussion that help illustrate the character's notability. In the anime's regard, its character arc and the impact it had on viewers is definitely commented on frequently even years after its exit from the show. There's a dissertation here, which while brief actually covers how reactions to the anime helped affect the games itself later on. There's also discussion here on how Butterfree leaving continues a theme of loss and acceptance for children to understand. Additionally there is some design commentary, and while I'd like that to be stronger (then again, let's be real it's a butterfly), the avenue of its evolution being inconsistent and how fans have attempted to rationalize such and the importance of such rationalization is talked about in a published paper here. Now this is just from a cursory glance online thus far, but with how quickly I found these in scholarly works I feel there's enough to this subject to warrant it as a stand alone, it's just a bit in the rough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I can't access one of them, the others you posted are only 1-2 sentences long when talking about Butterfree, so it kinda backs up the extremely trivial mention/REFBOMB idea here. This feels like it's going into a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument unless you can outright demonstrate several reliable, significant sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More I'm suggesting one could build a "death by 1000 cuts" approach of using the smaller sources providing unique thoughts on a matter observations to support bigger sources in the article, which we've seen in the past can work. It's a weaker argument I'll admit, but it's why I prefaced this with a weak keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the "Weak" part after the recent addition and work on the article and some contemplation. Additionally I feel the "refbomb" argument is a misnomer, as it's being used apparently against the references in the article as a whole instead of the reception section, and the sources cited there are providing some commentary as to why the character matters particularly due to its anime characterization which is still valid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added this source to the reception (and used it to reduce the number of citations by replacing a source for this in the Appearances section). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst I wish there was more here on the species, I think the article does enough to help the subject pass GNG with the mentions of the anime. From the way I read it and see the sources in the reception, I believe the mentions of Bye Bye Butterfree justifies the importance of the Butterfree character in the anime, as well as states why the species is popular in the first place, not strictly about the episode itself. CaptainGalaxy 10:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is a WP:REFBOMB circumstance fuelled by mere mentions. This hasn't achieved WP:SIGCOV and can be written up in another more notable article. Jontesta (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple articles that go into detail on Butterfree, not merely the episode. Notably, the IGN source, Crunchyroll source, and Sports Illustrated source, on top of the entomological sigcov clearly passes WP:THREE. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Been on the fence about this one the past few days, but I believe this just squeaks past notability. If it were just the Bye Bye Butterfree refs I'd have considered shifting topic focus (And if this discussion does end in a merge/redirect, I would suggest seeing if using this content for that end is viable) but the refs on the urban legend are surprisingly good and do help show there is discussion among players about Butterfree in multiple aspects. While the refs could be stronger, I do believe that this article has just enough to justify a split-out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting is divided between editors arguing for a Keep and those advocating a Redirection. A source analysis might help resolve the difference of opinion whether or not they are sufficient to keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sakazaki

[edit]
Ryo Sakazaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Getting this out of the way: the article is huge, but FANDOM pages are also huge, that doesn't have anything to do with a character's notability. In this case, Ryo does not appear notable, and the article only reinforces how Dan Hibiki, the character who is a parody of him, is probably notable while Ryo is not. What is not primary-sourced development information or plot summary is sourced entirely to trivial mentions or listicles that mention him alongside all other characters, only indicating KOF characters are notable as a group. I appreciate the effort to improve the article but Boneless Pizza was likely correct to redirect it in 2023. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure it in reception to make sure it had a big impact not only in game journalists discussing him on his own in different countries. Also real people. There are cases of people reacting to his marketing, developers inspired by his story or involving him or simply how important was him being a guest character in Fatal Fury Special also inspired the creation of the fighting game franchise KOF.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps, I added several new articles focused around him just now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many articles on SNK characters (List of The King of Fighters characters), where I would struggle with notability. The recent additions don't show a significant change in notability. I think covering the character in an article together with SNK's other character would be more useful. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment After talking with other users, I tried cleaning up the article by removing reviews and pointless revisions. Most of thecurrent articles are primarily focused on the characters and games narrative with the exception of his Mr. Karate alterego which is more rare so I used few previews for that. Furthermore, I have just found that the internet meme was far more popular worldwide and expanded on it. I also made sure to keep the only important Fatal Fury parts as Ryo's inclusion in FFSpecial is famous for inspiring the KOF franchise as well as guest characters. Same with his role in kof as I only placed articles focused on him and or team. I also changed the commentary of Dan Hibiki and how the company reacted to Dan's character by creating another parody character.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for now. There's definitely some potential for discussion regarding Ryo here, and I do feel there is some ground where establishing him helps Dan's article. But many of the sources I've looked through here just aren't saying anything or really next to anything and are mostly reviews. While I recognize the monumental effort I feel it needs a far tighter scope and a near nuke to boil down what's actually said about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against any removal of content but I think the current article passes the rule of best three:
  • The internet meme that has been so popular that has been part of an official mobile game.
  • Ryo is the first guest character in gaming history, inspiring The King of Fighters '94.
  • Dan Hibiki.

There is also all those other articles that aren't focused about gameplay or story, but critcize it like how Ryo's age makes no sense in Fatal Fury Special, his ridiculously unfiting built appearance from KOFXV, his rivalry appeal with Geese from XIV, etc. I agree content can be removed but deletion seems sudden.Tintor2 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what three sources do you feel hold up the article? It's not just concepts, but the sources themselves. So many of the things here don't even mention the character much or in passing, and those that do aren't saying really much at all. While I'm not saying there isn't something here, it's hard to see that in light of all this. So if you had to start from zero, what fistful of sources would you use as examples of it being notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge isn't going to work - this is enormous. (311kb!) If it's to be a redirect, please specify where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Comment''' I rearranged the reception and removed most articles that are useless. There is only one review in a comparison the character has with Street Fighter in reception. The only paragraph that abuses a bit retrospectives is the small one of the middleaged persona. The Fatal Fury and KOF feature articles dedicated to the character they criticize his presentation, constant similarities with Ryu from Street Fighter, moves or role in the series. Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that most of the notability is around Dan Hibiki and the feud between game studios. There is some borderline coverage for the character outside that. I am torn because it feels mostly like context for why the character became the subject of the more notable parody in Dan. But I could be convinced to keep the page to provide a richer context of this as a separate character. Either way, this article needs a serious clean-up due to weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covet Fashion

[edit]
Covet Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Little significant coverage comfortably independent of the subject. The Fortune, VentureBeat and Vice articles provide significant coverage, but are interspersed closely with interviews and many read like profiles of the business achievements of their creator. The Fortune article reveals itself to be part of a "daily newsletter on the world’s most powerful women", and as you read you get the sense that all its information comes from the developer as the source, which flatters her immensely: "Like any good marketer, Ethington knows her product intimately". Gita Jackson of Vice recounts herself attending a Fashion Week event held by Covet and: surprise! Both she and Covet seem very keen to name drop sponsor fashion brand Badgley Mischka front and centre, as Fuchs says: "“I think Covet provides an opportunity for people to experience Badgley Mischka that wouldn’t otherwise have that opportunity". The other articles, like Bleeding Cool and Disney News, are ephemera around game updates. Needs something a little more evaluative and removed from the creators to suggest it's not held up by puff pieces. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We agree that the coverage in those three sources is significant. Those sources are occasionally fawning but their coverage of the game is solidly over the bar AND found in mainstream media, something unusual for an app. We can add in things like [2] and lots of things like [3] (not in depth, but certainly showing the raw breadth of coverage). Hobit (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the sources identified from Waxworker and even Zxcvbnm should be more than enough to pass GNG. They're clearly in-depth, relevant and provide more than enough info to expand this article. Also, I mostly disagree with the assertion that the sources are of dubious independence. While some of them do contain various statements and information from the creators themselves, they're also interspersed with plenty of secondary coverage akin to actual journalism.
I think a pretty common misconception is that a source that uses primary info is inherently primary or non-independent in nature. Secondary sources are allowed to use these types of sources from a topic occasionally. What makes them truly secondary is the commentary and analysis of said sources, and I believe there's enough of both from the Fortune and Vice pieces to circumvent any concerns regarding their independence. Both sources clearly contextualize the game with the fashion industry while offering background info on the game's creation and creators. The Fortune piece may touch a bit more on the creator than the game, but it reveals pertinent and factual statements regarding its gameplay, style and freemium payment model, which is the type of encyclopedic coverage one would expect for any game.
Also, Gita Jackson is a fairly reputable gaming journalist. Though journalists can sometimes be influenced by the people and topics they cover, this article seems like a long-form piece of investigative journalism. She doesn't shy away from explaining the game in relation to negative aspects of the fashion industry: "I think that Covet is fun, but I don't know if it's good for me. My relationship to the fashion industry is complicated in that I love beautiful clothes but am both lazy and tend towards cynicism... an industry that has driven women to eating disorders... relies on sweatshops to create their garments... historically racist on the runway..." Another common misconception is that an article has to be overly negative or critical about a company or product in order to count towards NCORP. There's a difference between offering praise to a topic or person and glazing over them like a puff-piece does, and while I can see how one would assume the latter here, I think stuff like this proves that it walks towards the former side of the runway.
I've also yet to find evidence that the game's creators influenced these two publications such that they could cover the game in a fashionable light, akin to a truly non-independent source. It seems that there was editorial oversight that ensured the writers here had no vested interest in the game, its creators or the company itself.
Finally, if editors are still unconvinced, maybe a search on Google Scholar should be enough to prove it - like this solid scholarly source (may also need TWL to access). PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=1248565140"