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

Garten of Banban

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

The articles fails WP:GNG. To be noted, the draft Draft:Garten of Banban has been multiple times declined and eventually rejected. The current articles is no improvement. Agent 007 (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Agent 007 (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

while my version of the article isn't amazing i do feel this topic is relevant enough to warrant having a Wikipedia page. Online videos gain millions of views, it is official partners with platforms like xbox, playstation and nintendo aswell as the fact it's hard to walk into a shop and not see merchandise for this franchise. Iamthemintman (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unigine

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

Lack of significant coverage outside of the copious amounts of unreliable and/or primary sources listed. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Luxembourg. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG failure with a lack of reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The company is covered in this encyclopedia of computer graphics and games published by Springer Publishing: [1] If a print encyclopedia covers this topic we should too. There's also coverage in these books: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. This google scholar search also indicates WP:SIGCOV if you scroll though the first several pages. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nemezis: Mysterious Journey III

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

Fails GNG, with little significant coverage of note. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Poland. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Schizm: Mysterious Journey. It has 2 reviews that I could find, which isn't quite enough. It has a clear WP:ATD, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schizm: Mysterious Journey. The Games Machine review is the only reliable review, Adventure Gamers' reviews are unreliable since January 2021, the review for this game is past the cutoff point, see discussion. --Mika1h (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Schizm: Mysterious Journey.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janzen Madsen

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

Seemingly an attempted bypass of a previously several-times-rejected draft at Draft:Janzen Madsen. In short, this subject meets neither WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. There is little to no sourcing about this developer himself other than the fact he helped create Grow a Garden, and furthermore, no significant coverage. It is also an extremely poorly written and sourced article that I don't think has any place on Wikipedia at all and violates more WP:BLP policies than I can count, so even if the subject was notable (which I don't believe they are), WP:TNT likely applies. The only saving grace that could possibly save this article is WP:NCREATIVE, but I would personally not consider Grow a Garden to be a "significant or well-known work". And again, even if they were, if no reliable sources on the subject exist, it shouldn't be an article regardless of what the SNG says. Even the main WP:SNG policy hints towards this ("Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia"). Normally, in a case like this, I'd advise a redirect, but in this case in particular I think searching for the developer themselves is implausible and this article as it is right now should not be preserved in my blunt and honest opinion. λ NegativeMP1 22:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. λ NegativeMP1 22:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grow a Garden: Just because he made the most popular game in the world right now, does not mean he is automatically notable. There needs to be WP:SIGCOV about the person, which I found none of. GIven this, it's best to redirect him to the game he created, Grow a Garden. Unregistered Biohazard! 22:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the alt for the account that made this article. First off, I think he deserves an article because he is very well known in the Roblox Community. Secondly, im not really a good writer, so I apologize in advance for my poor writing. While I do agree for the sources, I have sourced some of Jandel’s personal life. Im sorry if this doesn’t make sense. Again, im not a good writer. I apologize in advance if it violates Wikipedia’s policies. One thing to note however is that i began writing on the Janzel Will Madsen page, not Janzel Madsen. Again, i apologize. Cheers!

-Wikiman2230 Idk887621 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being well known in the Roblox community is not an automatic golden ticket to notability. He needs to be covered in WP:RS, which I'm seeing none of. Unregistered Biohazard! 02:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. None of the cited sources discuss Jandel specifically. The article at Grow a Garden contains the greatest amount of information on Jandel, making redirecting the best choice. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Is it fine if i can add those sources here? Idk887621 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring AfC does not suddenly absolve one of the necessity for the article to be notable. Furthermore, according to Grow a Garden, "The game was created by an anonymous 16-year-old who goes by the username "BMWLux"", so he doesn't appear sufficiently linked to merit redirection or merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aw man :( I don’t make articles. But every time I do, they get deleted :( Is there any sources you recommend that i use for future articles? Idk887621 (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VG/S is a reliable source database for games. There is also WP:RSP and WP:SOURCEGUIDE for more general sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Idk887621 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also just so you know, i dont think it’s a bypass Idk887621 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝 04:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per above. readers can look for info in fandom roblox wiki drinks or coffee _{or prime} *GET OUT* 13:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frozenbyte

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

Numerous mentions, but no SIGCOV that indicates WP:CORPDEPTH is passed. The previous AfD resulted in a keep based purely on Google hits, standards have improved since then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Finland. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A page in the book Finnish Video Games: [6]. Studio profile in Edge, although mostly an interview: [7]. Finnish wiki page lists two books (refs #5 and #9) I don't have access to: Pongista pleikkaan and Pelien valtakunta. The first one has a two page chapter on the company. --Mika1h (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] I found those articles from major Finnish media outlets about the company. 85.76.11.195 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lehtinen, Toni (15 February 2006). "Äidin kellarista maailmalle" [From mom's basement to the world]. Turun Sanomat (in Finnish). Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.
^ Suolanen, Jouni (13 September 2006). "Frozenbyte kehitti peliään neljä vuotta" [Frozenbyte developed its game for four years]. Ilta-Sanomat (in Finnish). Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.
^ Kovalainen, Jari (20 April 2009). "Frozenbyte ei ole juuttunut jäihin" [Frozenbyte hasn't gotten stuck in the ice]. Kauppalehti (in Finnish).
^ Lappalainen, Elina [in Finnish] (30 October 2019). "Klassikkopelistudio Frozenbyte työllistää 130 vaikka liikevaihtoa on vain neljä miljoonaa – Julkaisi juuri jatkoa fantasiapelisarja Trinelle" [The classic game studio Frozenbyte employs 130 people even though its revenue is only four million – It just released a sequel to the fantasy game series Trine]. Kauppalehti (in Finnish).
^ Lappalainen, Elina [in Finnish] (12 October 2011). ""Maksa mitä jaksat" -kampanja pelitti suomalaisstudiolle hyvät rahat" [The "pay what you want" campaign earned the Finnish studio good money]. Kauppalehti (in Finnish).
^ Kauppinen, Jukka O. [in Finnish] (22 August 2005). "Frozenbyte – uusi suomalainen pelitalo parrasvaloihin (osa 1)" [Frozenbyte – a new Finnish game studio in the spotlight (part 1)]. Muropaketti [fi] (in Finnish). Otavamedia [fi]. Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.
^ Kauppinen, Jukka O. [in Finnish] (24 August 2005). "Frozenbyte – uusi suomalainen pelitalo parrasvaloihin (osa 2)" [Frozenbyte – a new Finnish game studio in the spotlight (part 2)]. Muropaketti [fi] (in Finnish). Otavamedia [fi]. Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.

Story Kitchen

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, with insufficient significant coverage that isn't just a run-of-the-mill announcement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, Companies, and United States of America. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your concerns, and I now better understand your point about many sources being routine announcements or primary material, but I also believe that there is also substantial, independent coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY. Three of the strongest examples are:
1. Variety – “John Wick Creator Derek Kolstad Launches Story Kitchen With Former APA Agent Mike Goldberg, Dmitri M. Johnson” (Sept 2022). This is not a simple announcement but a feature article in a leading industry publication. It discusses the company’s founding, leadership, and positioning within the broader Hollywood/interactive entertainment landscape—qualifying as significant, independent coverage.
2. Polygon – “Hollywood is entering a new era of successful and authentic video game adaptations… largely driven by Story Kitchen” (2025). This in-depth feature covers Story Kitchen’s multiple projects (Sonic, Tomb Raider, Sifu, Dredge, It Takes Two, Clair Obscur, etc.) and frames the company as a central force in reshaping how Hollywood handles video game IP. This is clear evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH, as it analyzes industry impact rather than routine announcements.
3. Deadline Hollywood – “Story Kitchen Sets First-Look Deal With Amazon MGM Studios” (May 2025). This article provides industry context for a multi-year studio partnership, situating Story Kitchen among comparable companies and showing recognition by one of the most authoritative entertainment outlets.
Together, these sources demonstrate that Story Kitchen has received significant, reliable, independent coverageconsistent with the requirements of WP:GNG. While some citations in the article are indeed announcements, these three (and others like them) provide the kind of depth that shows clear notability. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Story Kitchen has received significant, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources such as Variety, Polygon, and Deadline. These articles go beyond routine announcements or primary sources by providing in-depth analysis of the company’s founding, industry impact, and major partnerships, thereby satisfying WP:GNG and overcoming concerns about WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PRIMARY. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing CORPDEPTH for this article:

1) Examples of substantial coverage: This article provides an "overview of the history of an organization",

2) Audience: This company is in the press more than monthly, and is directly working alongside extremely high-level artists, and creators, in film, tv and games. The audience(s) for the projects that Story Kitchen touches is global, and massive.

3) Numerical Facts: This article does not rely on numbers to make a point.

4) Significant coverage of the company itself: None of the articles info can easily be lifted and used elsewhere. It's one-of-one data that is only directly applicable to Story Kitchen.

4 Is This Trivial Coverage?: As respectfully stated above for (2), this a company working within the mainstream entertainment industry, in an exotic sector (the merging of games and Hollywood), and no other company is myopically focused in this space.

Lastly, why delete Story Kitchen when there are dozens of other film and television production companies listed, with similar or less interesting businesses (such as Thunder Road, Temple Hill, Blumhouse, Di Bonaventura, Original Film, 87North, etc. Please explain what differences you are seeing so that the Story Kitchen article can be augmented to your satisfaction. MLGoldberg (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If something hasn't been deleted, it's either that they actually pass WP:NCORP due to more media attention, or their non-notability hasn't been noticed.

The point is that WP:FAME does not matter, it is entirely about media coverage that is non-trivial. You can be in the media a lot, but still not pass the WP:CORPDEPTH policy for the reasons stated there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having methodically gone through the CORPDEPTH list (and its sublists), can you please be more specific with the potential issue, or issues as they relate to the article?

I truly am not seeing what you're seeing, so more context would be supremely appreciated.

Additionally, do you mind highlighting how this article differs from almost all of your other American film production articles (such as the companies listed above, or hundreds more), that have not been deleted and allowed to remain on Wikipedia?

I'm truly failing to see that difference as well.

Examples that appear quite similar to Story Kitchen are:

Thunder Road, Temple Hill, Blumhouse, Di Bonaventura, Original Film, 87North, Escape Artists, Seven Bucks Productions, Marc Platt Productions, Rideback, etc.

Moreover, many are also -actually- in Wiki articles, alongside Story Kitchen! MLGoldberg (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your statement on talk page that I "do not have answers" - I did give you all the necessary answers in my previous response. But if you wish me to be more specific, then I believe that the sources pertain to: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" (such as this being one example), or are alternatively WP:PRIMARY (such as this) interview. If you wish to disprove it, then cite the best three sources you believe do NOT violate CORPDEPTH or are otherwise clear proof of notability.

Regarding the rest of your statement, that is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument so I don't believe me or anyone is really obligated to answer that any more than it has already been answered above. If something hasn't been deleted, it's either that they actually pass WP:NCORP due to more media attention, or their non-notability hasn't been noticed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your concerns, and I now better understand your point about many sources being routine announcements or primary material, but I also believe that there is also substantial, independent coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY. Three of the strongest examples are:

Variety – “John Wick Creator Derek Kolstad Launches Story Kitchen With Former APA Agent Mike Goldberg, Dmitri M. Johnson” (Sept 2022). This is not a simple announcement but a feature article in a leading industry publication. It discusses the company’s founding, leadership, and positioning within the broader Hollywood/interactive entertainment landscape—qualifying as significant, independent coverage.
Polygon – “Hollywood is entering a new era of successful and authentic video game adaptations… largely driven by Story Kitchen” (2025). This in-depth feature covers Story Kitchen’s multiple projects (Sonic, Tomb Raider, Sifu, Dredge, It Takes Two, Clair Obscur, etc.) and frames the company as a central force in reshaping how Hollywood handles video game IP. This is clear evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH, as it analyzes industry impact rather than routine announcements.
Deadline Hollywood – “Story Kitchen Sets First-Look Deal With Amazon MGM Studios” (May 2025). This article provides industry context for a multi-year studio partnership, situating Story Kitchen among comparable companies and showing recognition by one of the most authoritative entertainment outlets.

Together, these sources demonstrate that Story Kitchen has received significant, reliable, independent coverage consistent with the requirements of WP:GNG. While some citations in the article are indeed announcements, these three (and others like them) provide the kind of depth that shows clear notability. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Story Kitchen meets WP:GNG with significant independent coverage in major secondary sources. Variety covered its founding and industry positioning in depth (2022), Polygon profiled its broad impact on Hollywood’s approach to video game adaptations (2025), and Deadline reported on its multi-year first-look deal with Amazon MGM Studios (2025). These are not WP:PRIMARY or WP:ROUTINE, but clear examples of substantial industry recognition. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC) -Double !vote struck as you have already !voted above. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unregistered Biohazard! 17:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical blank interrupt

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

Disputed PROD, I don't believe this passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could reasonably be merged to Vertical blanking interval; the concept is actually tremendously important but would mostly be covered in paper books (such as Michael Abrash's Black Book), or long-since-departed blogs and Dr Dobbs' Journal website things. It's not always called the vertical blank interrupt; it might also be called the vertical retrace interrupt or various other synonyms, and it was tremendously important because back in the days before operating systems took over control of everything, if a programmer wanted to do anything with the graphics memory or graphics settings, without creating noise on the screen (because of conflicts between the graphics processing chip and the microprocessor), s/he had to wait for the vertical retrace and start doing things during that time. It was therefore used extensively in nearly all games designed for CRT-displays pre-Windows. Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added refs to the article; the concept is covered by many 1980s/early 1990s computer graphics books, with several giving quite a bit of detail about how to use VBIs to achieve different effects. It may be worth merging Raster interrupt into this article in the future, though, as the two concepts are essentially the same idea, just for vertical and horizontal sync pulses, and many platforms supported both. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Sampson: I do feel like there is a heavy WP:OVERLAP with vertical blanking interval as stated above; would you be heavily opposed to merging the two pages and changing your !vote to merge? Similarly, Horizontal blank interrupt could be merged with Horizontal blanking interval, or all just merged into Blanking (video). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think merging these topics with Vertical blanking interval or Blanking (video) would make sense. Those articles are about the concepts as they apply to video standards, not to computer architecture and computer graphics programming - vertical/horizontal blanking interrupts are a separately notable topic from vertical/horizontal blanking, and are covered by different sources and of interest to different readers. (That said, I do think it would probably make sense to have one article for each topic, rather than treating horizontal and vertical separately in both cases.) Adam Sampson (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the interval and the interrupt are so separate. The interrupt is just a hardware method to execute code during the interval; discussing the two separately is like discussing saws and sawing in two separate articles. When several people have invested in creating/editing heavily-overlapping articles it does hurt sacrificing someone's text, but we should think from our reader's perspective. Isn't it better for them to get the whole story told properly in one place? A (detailed) paragraph for the interrupt in an article on the interval just works nicely. Elemimele (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the interrupt is just a hardware method to execute code during the interval - and real time computing is just a hardware method to execute code in response to a timer. Yet I don't see anyone advocating we remove that. The issue is not how it works, but whether or not the topic is NOTEable on its own. Given its widespread coverage in books and magazines of the era, I can't see any possible NOTE claim passing, and am inclined to push this to a SNOW unless a more compelling argument is made for OVERLAP. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detalion

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, insufficient coverage from reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Poland. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Schizm: Mysterious Journey. Most notable game with significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNIGINE Company

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

Seems to fail WP:NCORP, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Luxembourg. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm also nominating the engine for deletion. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Designer's World

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

Non-notable video game and toy against WP:GNG. All links are dead: Archive links indicate the Providence Journal [8] and Business West [9] articles are obviously trivial mentions. The holiday gift guide, and additional sources I've found from CNN [10] and City Guide NY [11] are similarly very brief - CNN is just a brief description. Nothing I could find on the Internet Archive. Just no significant coverage here to substantiate the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Toys. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tiger_Electronics#Products. Stonkaments (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Stonkaments. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Lake (game studio)

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

WP:NCORP failed. No evidence the game studio is standalone notable from the games, and sources mostly refer to the games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Netherlands. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cube Escape. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw (video game)

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

Can't find sources demonstrating it passes WP:GNG. Assuming it does, it should probably be moved to (1976 video game), but right now it appears completely non-notable regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I follow correctly, this nomination is a case of a user having no access to 1970s print sources arguing a lack of mention on the Internet means it fails the low bar of GNG. There were four trade journals in the United States covering coin-op games in 1976, Cash Box, Vending Times, Replay, and Play Meter. Two of those are scanned and online for the period in question. Both cover it. The others do too, they are just not online. I imagine coin-op journals in other countries like Coin Slot (UK) and Game Machine (Japan) were covering it too. Does that make it a particularly important game? No. Does it mean the article passes GNG? Yeah it does. Indrian (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is rather disingenuous, as it not only alleges incompetence on my part but puts forth the sources as incontrovertible proof while putting forward WP:SOURCESEXIST arguments. I disagree heavily, both sources are essentially advertisements and not actually reviews or playtests. They are not what one would typically consider significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one used the word "incompetent" but you. I provided four sources that covered the game, two of which are online so I linked to them. That is pretty much the opposite of that WP page you linked. Trade publications are in the business of announcing new games, that's one of their major jobs. Significant coverage is not defined anywhere as "reviews" or "playtests," and the trades separate their ad content from their news content. If all the trades saw fit to announce the game and describe how it functions, then that easily passes GNG, which is an incredibly low bar. If you have another policy reason for wanting to delete, I am all ears. Indrian (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV clearly states that: "advertising [...] are not considered independent" as it "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". The publication can be considered affiliated if it is willingly publishing an ad, which can be distinguished from publishing a critical review of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that even if we assume that it is notable, WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be failed as a simple description of gameplay does not indicate importance at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advertising. Trade publications have ads; these are not them. Sure, a lot of the info comes from the companies releasing the games, but it is confirmed and vetted and the editor decides what games to feature. No different than reporting on any other news story. It is coverage, not advertising. Again, GNG is a very low bar to meet. Indiscriminate is a better argument, however. Indrian (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trying to find Japanese sources for this. @Indrian: I looked through all issues of Game Machine for 1976 found here https://onitama.tv/gamemachine/archive.html and did not find any coverage of this title. However, if anyone manages to find a copy of Monthly Coin Journal (月刊コインジャーナル) volume 1 issue 1 from May 1976, there's a slim chance it may have coverage given the time period and subject.
Also, not voting for the moment, but if this is kept I would strongly support a move to Outlaw (1976 video game). MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JetSynthesys

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases including product launches, new initiatives, and funding news as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ely

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not find sufficient reliable independent sources with significant coverage so as to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO. The article has remained unreferenced and essentially unchanged since the last AfD in 2016. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Video games. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Legacy: Seems the game novels are his only notable works (layman's definition of notable, that is, not WP:N's definition). Nil🥝 08:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should've said in my nomination that I'd also be happy with a redirect. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I'm all for keeping writers if possible but it's almost impossible to even find the books when you google him. I'd even just delete on the grounds that it frees up the name for someone later. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, very little sourcing going in to anything on him as a person or the books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lack of sources in this WP:BLP requires deletion. No problem with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Isle Studios

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

Appears to lack standalone notability and fails WP:NCORP - furthermore, no obvious target for redirection since there two separate articles on games they made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 29 August 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) 04:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Slender: The Arrival. Most notable product. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To either game in this category (which subsequently needs to deleted after the redirect). There is a lot of routine announcements about games but nothing that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no good target, why redirect? It's just going to result in WP:SURPRISE for anyone who is not looking for that particular game. A delete seems more apt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters

AfDs for this article:

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters. The page does not address the concerns raised in that discussion, and continues to be a WP:DIRECTORY that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons has the actually standalone notable monsters. Maybe WP:SALT time for this page too, given that people cannot seem to stop recreating it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My reasoning is unchanged from the last AFD for this list, when it was Deleted several years ago. D&D monsters are notable as a group, hence why we have the Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons article that includes lists of some of the more notable examples. Some individual monsters are even notable enough to have their own articles. This list, however, is essentially nothing but a table of contents of various official D&D books from a specific version of the game. It is not even useful as a navigational list, as the vast majority of blue links here just redirect to different lists of D&D monsters. As stated in the nomination, it runs afoul of multiple categories at WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after vast improvement in sourcing over the condition it was in at time of the first AFD. The article now contains a significant amount of independently sourced content on the concept of monsters in 3.5 edition in general and on specific monsters as well. Failing that, there is significant potential for improvement and this should be moved back Draft rather than deleted again. To counter the claims that this violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in specific official D&D 3.5 edition books. It is a sortable drop-down list for a single edition because a list for monsters of all editions would be too big. Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries, as clearly shown in this article. These independent sources provide context with referenced explanations. The majority of the content for each monster goes beyond plot summary-only descriptions of the monsters in question. These sources discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of these monsters in addition to concise summaries. These are likewise not excessive listings of statistics that lack context or explanation as each entry contains very little in-game statistical information, and do include explanatory text providing context. It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game. These gameplay concepts as a whole and many individually are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context. With the independent sources provided, this list serves an important encyclopedic purpose for readers to better understand the subjects individually and as a whole. This is more than a simple listing without context, which has been adequately supplied as to which elements of the game these came from and when they were published. It also provides a timeline of the game over several years, which provides an inherent context to the growth and establishment of the game over time. This is not a walkthrough, nor does it provide even remotely enough information to play the game. The fact that more of the entries currently lack independent sources is something likely to change over time given how many have been added in the amount of time that this was in draft space, and I believe that in time this list will continue to improve if it remains in article space. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game." An indiscriminate list of creatures and their requisite number is essentially a guide to what monsters appear in the game rather than only including what is notable. The nature of a game guide is that it includes all information regardless of importance. That may be fine for WikiBooks but not Wikipedia proper. I'd support a transwiki if it would make sense but draftification is unlikely to help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much has changed since last time and I see little discussion of the entire overarching topic, only random scattered sources on individual monsters (Many of whom already have articles are or already listed elsewhere). Runs afoul of several guidelines. I see no reason to retain this list. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps reduce to the list of monsters for which new information was introduced, or which are themselves newly introduced. BD2412 T 23:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article gives context, e.g., in the column "description", so it is neither a case of WP:DIRECTORY nor of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list may be used as game guide, but its purpose is obviously not to be a guide for the game, so WP:GAMEGUIDE also does not hold. --Cyfal (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously not"? How so exactly? GAMEGUIDE is not based on author intent, which is impossible to know for sure, but on the structure of the article, which clearly resembles a guide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many secondary sources in the article, more are out there to be used for further improvement in the future - some of those from Talk:Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons will apply here - and more are published all the time. So there has been significant improvement since the result of the last deletion result. This is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, as there is a large but defined and limited number of entries here. It does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because it is not a simple listing, but contains more information and sourced commentary. It is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, because this is not meant to and will not at all help to play the game, but rather illustrates general interest by secondary sources made available for Wikipedia readers in this spin-out topic from Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. It surely is not perfect, but as always Wikipedia is WP:WORKINPROGRESS, and the current state has been approved through the official channel of WP:AFC to come back into mainspace, as is the proper way to go after improvements after a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't find the argument regarding the number of sources particularly compelling because few (if any) are actually about the 3.5 specific version of the monsters, but are instead about the monsters in the franchise as a whole, or very specifically about a different version of the game. And many of them are extremely poor quality (i.e. Listicles from content mills) or are things like previews/announcements for 5th edition books that have little-to-nothing to do with listing every monster appearing in 3.5. Again, we have Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons to actually cover the concept of the notability of monsters in D&D and to list examples that sources show are notable. Listing every single monster from a single version of the game, without any regard to notability or sources, is not a valid spinout. As I said before, most of this list is even worse than a WP:GAMEGUIDE, it is simply a table of contents for D&D gamebooks. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AFD. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, which requires encyclopedia articles to "avoid lists of gameplay concepts". At best, most of these examples are redundant with Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, which could be a decent WP:ATD-R. No consensus to re-create this deleted article. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia doesn't create multiple character lists from the same series. Compare examples from Category:Lists of Nintendo characters. It does a disservice to readers to split up several different lists for basically the same characters,. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are subject to WP:FAILN, which this one is currently undergoing. AfD consensus decides whether the individual list should be kept. I think at least one participant has mentioned WP:HANDLE as well. 11WB (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above referenced ATDs, while well-meaning, are problematic in that there exist somewhere between six and ten "versions" of Dungeons and Dragons. While all are role-playing games featuring monsters, the lists are not the same between them, nor are the write-ups or characteristics of the monsters readily interchanged between any two versions. For Wikipedia notability purposes "Dungeons and Dragons" is a genre of game, and specific versions, like 3.5, are specific games within that genre. But that doesn't really fit, because when a D&D-specific monster is covered in RS, which version of that monster is seeing its notability affirmed? The D&D current at time of RS publication? All ones previously to and including that version? All versions including those first published years subsequent to the RS? Thus, I believe that per-version lists of monsters are the least bad way to cover this notable topic, while acknowledging that neither this, nor any other schema we've been able to come up with, absolutely fits our notability and list policies perfectly. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am unable to !vote as I am involved as the reviewer who accepted the draft through AfC. The author @BOZ is aware of the issues with this list, as was discussed in this conversation. Once the list is fully complete, it will be split into smaller lists for the sections that are considered too long for this main list. There is obviously history here with a prior AfD, however as that AfD took place 6 years ago, the list is not going to be the same as it was then (on Wikipedia). It should therefore be assessed as it sits today. 11WB (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @11wallisb: I have never heard that an AfC reviewer is unable to !vote in a discussion. I'd be interested in seeing the policy saying that, as I have participated in discussions where I was the AfC reviewer, and merely disclosed my role when participating. BD2412 T 18:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It isn't policy to my knowledge. I choose not to !vote in AfDs where I have prior involvement in good faith. A !vote whether it be to keep or delete could present underlying connotations in those scenarios. It's a choice I make to maintain neutrality, but where I'm still able to share information on a matter, such as this one. 11WB (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not entirely sure on Keep vs Redirect/WP:DRAFTIFY but I do oppose the lister's suggestion of WP:SALT "given that people cannot seem to stop recreating it". While a previous version of this article went through AfD & was deleted, this version went through the AfC process, was reviewed/accepted and then put up for AfD a few days later. Salting doesn't seem warranted since this is not a case of the article being repeatedly recreated & put back into mainspace without review. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to jam articles through AfC without significant changes is still recreation. It's likely some inexperienced reviewer will approve it eventually and it will slip through the cracks, even if it is rejected by experienced reviewers. This seems to be what happened here after it was declined by Pokelego999 earlier for quite valid reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just had a discussion with BOZ regarding that here. They are aware it is usually not recommended to remove previous declines. Due to them doing that, I wasn't aware of previous reviewers reasoning for not accepting the article. I have pinged The Bushranger for comment. 11WB (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this was done mistakenly. Definitely not on purpose! 11WB (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, between the last decline and the most recent submission, over twenty new references were added to the article. I don't see how that can fairly be characterized as "Trying to jam articles through AfC without significant changes". BD2412 T 03:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references are all for reception of individual monsters. They do not, however, address the WP:LISTN issue of the list as a whole or why it does not WP:OVERLAP with the more general Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons. The list needed major structural changes and the added references were very minor. So while there were changes, they were not what I'd characterize as "significant" as they were ignoring the problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did give a further follow-up to their reasoning here. I don't agree that this list in particular was attempted to be accepted through AfC in that manner (even though how it looks might suggest otherwise—this still isn't the case at all). I will concede however, in the event that this AfD does close as deleted, that I accepted the draft too early. For the moment, I stand by my acceptance of this draft as I believe it is okay for mainspace. (This isn't a vote for keep, merely my AfC review decision from a few days ago). 11WB (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm, the duplicate point has been made few times however looking at the article you linked and this one, there is a clear difference in years. Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons lists monsters from 1977 into the 80s and List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters lists monsters from 2003 through to 2007. I know very little about D&D and Baldur's Gate, however this discrepancy appears to be quite obvious. Or have I got this one completely wrong? 11WB (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the name and lede of the "Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons" article does not specify a timeframe for the creatures. I see some monsters missing from the first list, such as Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons), but nothing is saying they cannot be added to that one. The criteria should be tightened to standalone notable monsters only as there are simply too many generic creatures that got minor mentions for the list to not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No opposition to any new articles on standalone notable monsters that can actually come up with sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, but I'd suspect that to be few and far between if it doesn't exist already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is, in the article you linked there is 'Monster Manual (1977)' and 'Monster Manual II (1983)'. In this one however all the manuals are from 2003 to 2007. 11WB (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what I am saying is that the majority of notable creatures from D&D 3.5 edition were introduced far earlier. D&D reuses many monsters and does not introduce a totally new slate of creatures each time. The editions are just revisions of rules and lore, etc. Anything that is an exception to that can easily be added to the general monster list in a new section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fair enough, this is helpful to know, thank you. This also shows how little I understand the game. That point I made can be completely disregarded! 11WB (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, together with List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) and List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99) (and other relevant articles). I don't see why we need more than one article for this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice to some sort of reordering of what is where. D&D monsters are a big deal with plenty of sources written on them, so the larger topic of D&D Monsters meets WP:LISTN easily, and some sort of WP:SUMMARY style spin-off is fine given that the topic is a very long one. Now, whether categorizing by edition is the best idea is another question, so I could see other ways of organization here, but this is a valid list IMO. SnowFire (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namco Bandai Partners

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

Doubt about notability for this version of the article. The page was originally created in 2006 to be about Ozisoft, the Australian distribution arm of Atari. I think it was then changed to be about distribution of Namco Bandai Partners around 2010? But finally around 2021 to be solely about the 2008 joint venture of Infogrames and Namco Bandai. That was short lived until 2009 when Namco Bandai took over, however at that point I see the notability to be part of Bandai Namco. Perhaps it could be merged to Infogrames or Bandai Namco? IgelRM (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and France. IgelRM (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, judging from some research I’ve done, while Namco Bandai Partners was a distributor, they occasionally published games separate from those of its parent company and they were technically a separate division. This source [12] says: "Both arms of Namco Bandai’s European distribution company have now merged under a single brand – Namco Bandai Games." The Atari SA page already makes mention of this company in case you were wondering. Luigitehplumber (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this is saying the Namco Bandai Partners that existed from 2009 to 2013 was a notable separate division of Bandai Namco? I think we end up with just a list of games, which could be better covered by a Namco Bandai Partners category. IgelRM (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In some way, that's a bit like if Atari Europe (it's past name) was a notable division. While I could easily expand the page better, I'll nominate this for it to be merged into the Bandai Namco Entertainment page. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand, but I would support a merge to Bandai Namco Entertainment or perhaps List of Bandai Namco video games. IgelRM (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what I'm trying to explain is that if there was a page about Atari Europe, there wouldn't really be any point at all because they mainly existed as a distributor much like with Namco Bandai Partners. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bandai Namco Entertainment with sufficient detail. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now Playing (magazine)

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

DePRODed by User:Kvng without any sources given to justify. No indication of standalone notability. While it was formerly a section in a different magazine, this particular DAB is (magazine) so it only applies to the separate magazine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Florida. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Popular culture. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I would argue for a redirect to publisher etc but I cannot find a reliable source that mentions this magazine. IgelRM (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to theGlobe.com where it is mentioned as WP:ATD. Deleting will create a bunch of redlinks which makes things worse for readers. Let's not make things worse for readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the mention, but the source gigagamez.com does not mention the magazine. IgelRM (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to theGlobe.com#Published magazines per WP:ATD-R. I added a reference to the article that mentions Now Playing magazine. --Mika1h (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is a distributed press release on GamesIndustry.biz. On the topic of the theGlobe.com article, I don't think the reference is sufficient to include the magazine in the list and have changed it. IgelRM (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used to cite simple statements of facts. An example on that policy page includes an artist's discography, this list of published magazines is similar. --Mika1h (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox Schlep ban controversy

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

This article is effectively an offshoot of Child safety on Roblox, which is an offshoot of Roblox -- the most popular online game in the world apparently [13]. I don't see why this sub-sub-article needs to be a thing outside of Child safety on Roblox, which is decently sized despite already discussing this event and wholly overlaps with the topic of this article. Not every controversy about this game that appears in the news deserves an article.

This article was created by an apparent fan only a few hours after the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Schlep (YouTuber) was started, this looks more like an attempt to effectively save that article from deletion than a good-faith offshoot. The Louisiana AG lawsuit has nothing to do with this youtuber or his ban [14], and neither do the other ongoing lawsuits mentioned in this article. The Ro Khanna petition is also not about his ban [15]. This page has little to no special significance more than any of the major lawsuits/investigations/controversies listed on Child safety on Roblox#Legal actions and regulation. V. S. Video (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion regarding whether to keep or delete the article, but I have a perspective here that I want to present as I'm not sure how many editors may bring it up (to give more context, I'm the editor who got Roblox to GA status). My concern with this article is not that it is notable or overlap; this is a completely separate thing from the rest of Roblox's child safety issues. That one is more broad, and this one focuses on a specific incident. An incident that I can't really argue isn't notable, either (though there is definitely a debate to be had about WP:SUSTAINED). However, that's actually where my problem with it arises. I am a firm believer that any sort of "Criticism of" or "X Controversy" sections and/or articles are net negatives to the encyclopedia, and are not compatible with the neutral point-of-view policy. There are obviously exceptions, such as regarding major historical events or leaders or situations where not highlighting the criticism as a major aspect is, in of itself, violating neutrality. Roblox isn't one of those cases though, as you could discuss Roblox without bringing up its problems. The Roblox article used to have a massive Criticism and controversies section that went into excessive detail regarding specific incidents, rather than cover the issues broadly. Now, however, it covers those issues more broadly and is far more neutral, with Child safety on Roblox being a very reasonable sub-article that goes into more detail. I actually like this arrangement because that article, too, tries to make it neutral and give Roblox's perspectives on the criticism. However, I do not think that highlighting a specific incident like this is beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. I do not think it is possible to make this article anything but inherently non-neutral, and Wikipedia shouldn't pick sides. Nothing of value would be lost should this merely be a sub-section of Child safety on Roblox#Legal actions and regulation, or at least mentioned there. There are definitely things in this article that are not clearly related to the Schlep controversy (see WP:SYNTH). But this is obviously a very different perspective on the matter than what most editors would likely highlight due to what editors would or would not consider neutral. So while I don't really want this article to exist per NPOV, I also don't think there is a strong enough policy based reason to vote for deletion outright here. Furthermore, I hope that this discussion, regardless of wherever it goes, is actually based on Wikipedia's policies and not boiler plate statements, such as "very significant controversy", accusations of censorship, or even just viewing this from the lens of a Roblox player (which would be inherently biased, most likely; I speak for myself as a Roblox player that despises how things are being handled by them right now). λ NegativeMP1 21:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say I told you so, but I did say this would end up happening if we made a controversy article this soon. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: although I rolled my eyes when I stumbled across this article, I see the article as distinct from Child safety on Roblox, mainly because it's about the internet outrage over silly things, and child safety seems mainly to be a backdrop. There are lots of problems with the article, but I believe they can be fixed, so per WP:ATD, it should not be deleted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take your edits and contributions to Know Your Meme, which is a more suitable place for this kind of stuff. maybe when the dust settles it could have an article here. I didn't read any text here, just dropping my 2 cents 2804:14D:7681:5EA7:85A:41CD:D3F6:A1A2 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Child safety on Roblox - ~~Comment~~ As the current article, I agree that it is effectively an off-shoot of Child safety on Roblox. However, I believe the topic of the article can be addressed. Leaning to think that it passes significant coverage for the immediate events surrounding the YouTuber's ban (the virtual and in-person response), although an argument can be made that it is always framed in the larger topic of Roblox child safety policies. I've taken steps to address a few of the loosely related information regarding child safety per WP:Synth. After reviewing available news coverage, I'm going to go ahead and make a vote for Merge. I agree with fellow editors that this falls under WP:Sustained. What little information in this article, that is distinct from the content in Child safety on Roblox, is not notable enough to warrant its own article. If developments specifically for Schlep or his countersuit become notable, future discussion can be had. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article only has issues that can be changed with edits D&d887 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge topic to Roblox (or Schlep) - My suggestion is Roblox's notable legal cases and criticisms mentioned here should be discussed separately within the Roblox article and make sure major notable topics of public discourse about a company are given their due weight, and not entirely hidden in a subarticle. The public indictment of Roblox / government legal actions against the company should have some presence in the main article which is lacking for now. But as for the matter regarding Schlep's ban.. A few news articles does not provide significant coverage over a sufficient period of time within the notability standards for events. The continuing major news coverage is over Child Safety on Roblox and not Schlep's ban, specifically. And yet Schlep's ban is notable because it's important to that notable 2 million viewer Youtuber named Schlep, and their community. So the natural place for this topic would be in the articles about Schlep or Roblox or Child Safety on Roblox. The event does not seem to merit its own separate article; I believe readers would expect to find this discussed within the article on Roblox and the article on Schlep, but the topic is not so complicated and detailed that a separate Schlep's Ban controversy seems reasonable, so Redirect to Roblox or subarticles or Redirect to Schlep are all viable solutions. I am agreeing no need for an article by the title Schlep Ban Controversy. --Mysidia (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable enough, considering the amount of shooting themselves in the foot Roblox is doing, as the days go by, many roblox youtubers (Gwamgo, Parlo, Ducky, etc) are still talking about this situation, making it meet WP:SUSTAINED." believe readers would expect to find this discussed within the article on Roblox and the article on Schlep" You would be correct, but this page was split from the Roblox article because someone believed it was notable enough. It is very notable considering the fact that a congressman, and a attorney general are fighting against this, and the former's petition is getting alot of votes for Ro Khanna and KreekKraft's cause. shane (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schlep article got merged into here. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (copied from reply) This is notable enough, considering the amount of shooting themselves in the foot Roblox is doing, as the days go by, many roblox youtubers (Gwamgo, Parlo, Ducky, etc) are still talking about this situation, making it meet WP:SUSTAINED. per @Mysidia's statement which I made a reply to, You would be correct, but this page was split from the Roblox article because someone believed it was notable enough. It is very notable considering the fact that a congressman, and a attorney general are fighting against this, and the former's petition is getting alot of votes for Ro Khanna and KreekKraft's cause. shane (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those Youtubers you mentioned, are not reliable sources. See WP:RSPYT. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time, those roblox commentary youtubers I just mentioned usually are reliable. shane (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. WP:RS and, as Thegoofhere stated, WP:RSPYT. λ NegativeMP1 02:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provided reliable sources below, @EditorShane3456, @Thegoofhere and @NegativeMP1. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They usually provide useful information in stuff like predator cases, and scandals. SharkPuppet3 (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you dont even play Roblox. SharkPuppet3 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do, actually, though not as much as I used to. I grew up watching multiple Roblox and Minecraft YouTubers as well. But you can't cite them on Wikipedia and policies exist to explain why. I'd recommend reading them. λ NegativeMP1 18:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The congressman and attorney general in mention are against Roblox's child safety policies, not Schlep's ban, per sources listed by the nominator. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The individual that got banned doesn't seem to be notable, all coverage I can find is from the last few weeks, nothing before. I'm not sure getting banned makes them more notable. I think this could be adequately covered in an article about Roblox. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how this whole Wikipedia comments thing works. However, the fact that this individual has been banned makes them much more notable. I didn't even know about Schlep until this. 71.205.65.153 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So deleting an article about his ban controversy, when his biography already got deleted.. that makes no sense. shane (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't make sense. Multiplivision (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merged, not really deleted. (Merged to here) Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost TOOSOON at this point, I suspect this will be a nothing burger in six months, but we'll see. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what will happen to schleps notability in the future, but this incident itself, where roblox sends a cease and desist to schlep, who helps take down predators has affected their PR in numerous ways and is simply lots of events in one, which is worthy of an article. WhatADrag07 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reliable sources are found, such as NBC Chicago ^[1] along with Times of India a Less reliable source ^[2] Yahoo news, ^[3], among some policies such as WP:DIVERSE, for diversity from Times of India, also could be a WP:CASESTUDY, thanks, Valorrr. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pinged me below: My concerns with the page are not notability. Although, WP:SUSTAINED does likely apply. I know reliable sources exist that covered the topic. I have other issues with the pages existence. However, I still do not feel inclined enough to vote. λ NegativeMP1 03:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your choices. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Yahoo News article a reprint (if I'm using the correct term) of an article by COMPLEX? Thegoofhere (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your logic is the event is still happening, all of the article's sources are within a 11-day period. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is definitely a WP:PAGEDECIDE question more than anything. While you could make a WP:SUSTAINED argument against notability, given that a Rolling Stone piece was published a day ago, it is reasonable to assume that this event will be covered to completion. The page does feel too long to merge, but I suspect that the intricate detail tag has something to do with that. If this page was trimmed down, could this be covered just as well or better in its own section on Child safety on Roblox#Anti-pedophile activism? I personally lean yes, but it's tenuous at best. Given that there is a considerable amount of attention to this incident, with some coming from international sources, there is an argument that this can only be given the appropriate weight through a separate article.
As an aside, please do not cast aspersions on the creator of this page. This was likely a good faith attempt to remedy the WP:1EVENT concerns brought up in the AfD of Schlep's page. Based5290 :3 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Child safety on Roblox - too heavy an overlap to require 2 pages on a very similar topic, treading a bit into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and, as said on that page, "riding the crest of the wave". I absolutely think there should be some page on it, but these two pages are overly similar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources were published within a 11-day period (August 14 - August 25). The article is just this week's controversy (violating Wikipedia:SUSTAINED and Wikipedia:EVENTCRIT). You can see this closer in the Wikipedia:Proseline, which shows how the whole of the article happened over a few days. This article should have been Wikipedia:DELAYed (which I advocated for in the previous discussion) as this topic is still developing.
Mikeycdiamond (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, August 27 just started lol. Means it's been 1 day without coverage, which really doesn't mean anything. jolielover♥talk 07:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(unsure if reliable)^[4]
posted 11h ago, another article, among Rolling stones yesterday. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This case is still ongoing and plenty could happen still. I think this article should be kept. This controversey has received significant coverage in sources such as NBC Chicago [16], Times of India [17], and Windows Central [18]. The controversy has plenty of public backlash, political attention, and potential legal action [19], which meets notability guidelines WP:Notability. WhatADrag07 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we will need to rebrand the pages name and make the content on the page better and more Encyclopedic? I dont think the page should be 100% deleted but more of. updated through time and Another name. Maybe this event could actully result in a roblox ban or something else. Rz smth (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The controversy is serious, and a lot of reliable news sources have covered it (such as Yahoo News). There was also an entire (yet pretty small) protest outside of Utah State Capitol. With it gaining public attraction from famous figures (Chris Hansen), Roblox threatening to sue Schlep, and Qatar and Louisiana having problems with Roblox shortly after (Possible coinsidence) this might turn into a legal feud. Vovon25 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hansen, Qatar (among other countries), and Louisiana are all covered under Child safety on Roblox. They are also not explicitly connected to the incident of Schlep being banned by Roblox. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are. Chris Hansen talked to Schlep and is teaming up with him. Research more and don't be lazy. SharkPuppet3 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the country bans of Roblox, the Ro Khanna petition, and the Louisiana attorney general lawsuit? TheAlienAdventures (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As i stated, it is a possible coincidence. I am a bit doubtful, though, as Roblox has had a predator problem for years now, and these lawsuits and bans happened soon after the Cease and Desist letter. As stated before, Roblox may sue schlep, making a court case. As Roblox is a major corporation, this deserves its own article and not to be merged with Child safety on Roblox. Vovon25 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is being very important now. There suing Roblox over this! [20] More information is coming up by the second. Don't delete. Delete the Earth (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this goes in a bit more detail about it and think we should keep it 2A00:23C6:A062:D501:D1A1:885B:869E:6BCD (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

If your argument is entirely based on that the article should be WP:DELAYed, why do you want this deleted instead of draftified? See WP:RAPID (coincidentally just below WP:DELAY).UppercutPawnch (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Child safety on Roblox. I don't feel as though this incident is significant enough for its own page, when it can easily be covered in another without becoming too long/elaborate. Also, if this does happen, Schlep (YouTuber) should redirect there. This incident is notable enough to be on the main page though, hence why I'm voting merge (some info is not on that page as of yet). jolielover♥talk 07:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Merge to Child safety on Roblox. I feel this could have been WP:DELAYED until after concerns of WP:RECENTISM subsided, and I believe this article may eventually reach the point where it can be standalone due to pending legal actions and Chris Hansen jumping into the fray, hence draftify. That said, as one of the authors of the child safety page, I do feel that this article has enough WP:SIGCOV and reactions by notable figures ~~to warrant its own subheading~~ for what contents are not already under Child safety on Roblox#Anti-pedophile activism to be added to that section while it is not capable of standing on its own. (I have edited this my comment due to drowsy mistakes, I will make sure to not return after multiple hours of rest.) UppercutPawnch (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think a cease-and-desist letter brings a topic above the threshold of notability. There does not seem to be any lasting coverage beyond the cease-and-desist letter news cycle. The lack of notability reflects in the writing. A bunch of non-noteworthy info was stuffed in this article, like details about the individual's life or YouTube videos. Historyexpert2 (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schlep, like other youtubers by personal preference, only shared his first name, DOB, and his experience as a person who was groomed, so that lack of info point is invalid and useless to be completely honest shane (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as past voter This situation is STILL getting crazy by the day, and I wouldn't want just a section on the corporation page, this needs a page, even more people (Law By Mike, Legal Eagle) are making videos on this topic and are going for Schlep/Michael's defense (#FreeSchlep) And also, as someone mentioned before, NBC Chicago, a division of NBC is covering this situation now, making that source inherit the main companies reliability, which means that this article IS notable by proxy. shane (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some youtubers have made videos about this event doesn't mean it is worthy of a stand-alone article. V. S. Video (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above comment, it is guaranteed that this controversy will receive coverage in the future. Plus, its just got coverage today: [21] [22]. Every day there is at least one news story covering this event. Nominating this article for deletion is premature for now. G13 vs G14 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News sources which are reliable have articles 2600:4040:40F1:CF00:E41B:D678:15E6:FF16 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above, this is receiving ongoing coverage in a lot of places. I say this is still notable and should not be deleted. CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The subject has clearly received reliable coverage (NBC Chicago, Rolling Stone, Forbes, etc.), yet much of this attention is clustered in the present news cycle WP:NOTNEWS, raising issues of WP:TOOSOON and lack of long-term significance. The page also heavily overlaps with Child safety on Roblox, which already provides due weight and a neutral framework for related incidents.
I am torn between retaining it as a standalone or merging . The page’s creation closely followed the biography AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlep (YouTuber)), suggesting possible WP:POVFORK and elements of WP:RECENTISM. While a case could be made for WP:EVENTCRITERIA, as mentioned; I am torn. As it is not yet clear whether the coverage rises to the level for it's own page.
Now, if we go about merging this page to Child safety on Roblox it would align with WP:MERGE, and avoids premature standalone treatment. If WP:GNG is later met through WP:SIGCOV, a clean WP:SPLIT can be reconsidered for a later date. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; we don't know what may happen in the future. This topic may continue to chug along, or it could fizzle out. The answer to this is purely speculation as of right now, which is why I weakly am in support of keeping this article.— Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 05:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG, with sources such as the Telegraph, Forbes Staff, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Hindustan Times (doesn't appear to be a paid article), the Independent, PCMag, etc. Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The PCMag, Hindustan Times, and Jewish Telegraphic Agency articles I can understand as support for WP:SIGCOV. Forbes (arguably even the Independent and the Telegraph) frame Schlep's ban in the wider issues of child safety on Roblox (not enough to be passing mentions, but still not the main focus nonetheless). Neither the petition in Louisiana nor the attorney general have mentioned Schlep in their proceedings. The Independent article attributes the Change.org petition to Schlep, but is the only source I've seen that explicitly connects the two; the petition itself does not name Schlep or the ban. I'm of the belief that if there is a Wikipedia article about this YouTuber's C&D and ban from Roblox, it should concern primarily him, unless the wider movement against Roblox right now has been specifically attributed to this event. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has made it into mainstream media, Forbes has an article regarding the controversy, NBC has an article there, it has also made it to Times of India among countless articles. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Merge to Child safety on Roblox. These type of DMCA take-down controversies happens on YouTube all the time. Nothing about this is especially noteworthy enough to warrant an whole article for itself--Trade (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per @Wesoree, @Coleisforeditor, @Issac I Navarro, @G13 vs G14 @Vovon25, and @Valorrr there are 6 reliable sources that covered this situation in an article listed on the perennial list. shane (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There being reliable sources covering the topic is not enough to meet WP:EVENTCRIT, sustained coverage is also needed. Just about anything that gets covered in news has 6 reliable sources about it and wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Historyexpert2 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the 6 reliable sources given by hthem, but there is more reliable sources, and I know Wikipedia is not news, but this isnt news this is a controversy. shane (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that while I am saying that this article should be kept. There is also evidence for it being merged as I said in my comment above:
"Now, if we go about merging this page to Child safety on Roblox it would align with WP:MERGE, and avoids premature standalone treatment. If WP:GNG is later met through WP:SIGCOV, a clean WP:SPLIT can be reconsidered for a later date"

Coverage is sufficient to acknowledge notability, beyond being a simple internet spat. Since mainstream media has already picked it up and it has gain attention from people such as Chris Hansen. Thus, I lean toward keeping the article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could someone tell me why there is an {{Not a ballot}} template?--Trade (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed by another editor, but I believe due to the popularity of this article. (Famous youtubers, attract attention) Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: I added the template out of concern newer editors may flock to this discussion with boiler plate statements to keep the article based on it's notoriety in the Roblox community, rather than arguments specifically based on policy. Though I apologize if the addition was a bit preemptive. λ NegativeMP1 18:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You added the template to Schlep's AFD page, not this one Thegoofhere (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Wesoree and others, also mentioned by LegalEagle, Chris Hansen etc. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 03:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the way the controversy spread out, including Chris Hansen's involvement (also worth noting this NBC article was a top result on Google at one point), the controversy is plenty notable. LoTrWiki (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:LoTrWiki's argument Tankishguy :)(: (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage has continued since the AFD has opened - we're now on week 3: "Why Roblox banned a prominent paedophile hunter" (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8/29), "Roblox Banned a Creator for ‘Hunting’ Pedophiles — And Critics Are Pissed" (Rolling Stone, 8/25), "Roblox under fire after La. Attorney General opens lawsuit, ban of popular YouTuber" (KPLC, 8/28), "Roblox faces backlash after banning YouTuber who exposed predators" (Cape Argus, 9/01) ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident has sparked nationwide if not worldwide controversy, and the fact that the state of Louisiana, Chris Hansen and other notable celebrities have been involved concludes that this article should be kept. This article is also related to a current event and should be actively maintained. Also per above. HwyNerd Mike (talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ill Keep 2A00:23C6:A062:D501:D1A1:885B:869E:6BCD (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahida (Genshin Impact)

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

Fails WP:GNG - while the article is WP:REFBOMBed fairly heavily, there is only trivial coverage and unreliable sources. Multiple editors have noted its failure of GNG, but it was moved into mainspace anyway while disregarding the advice, so I am forced to create an AfD for it to determine the way forward. List of Genshin Impact characters is a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is this, which appears to be SIGCOV. There is also this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not waste peoples' time throwing out random sources where the name pops up. Explain what exactly about each source demonstrates significant coverage, especially since they are in different languages and not easily understandable. The first source appears to be about "translation techniques" and only uses the character as a random example? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the first source, it doesn't look very usable. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the second source in detail, but it at least looks promising. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the ChatGPT to help me read through the second journal. It seems to not have character-design analysis at all for Nahida. Quote ChatGPT: The piece titled “Artificial Intelligence Represented in Genshin Impact, Regulatory Initiatives, and Algorithmic Literacy” uses Genshin Impact’s Sumeru/Akasha arc as a case study to think about real-world AI issues. However, this article uses Nahida’s role as a metaphor for promoting algorithmic literacy and resisting blind dependence on data systems. This feels tricky. If we are to use this source in the article, I can't imagine what the Reception will be like -- though indeed "usable." SuperGrey (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT conversation. The article is too long to get a word-to-word translation from ChatGPT, so this is as far as I can get. SuperGrey (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree that this page should stay in Draft namespace, GNG talks about its potential, not its current state. We were just talking about the RS problem in the talk page, and I found these two sources: Youxi Tuoluo and Final Weapon. The reliability of both sources is currently being discussed in zhwiki and our source discussion page. Therefore, I suggested that we could wait till clearer source evaluations are established -- but alas, @Zxcvbnm probably did not notice the discussion thread in the talk page. SuperGrey (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately I did miss that. However, I believe that is fairly moot with regards to this article, as the Final Weapon source is trivial coverage regardless, and is largely about the more overarching plot of the DLC/expansion/patch/etc. than the character of Nahida herself. It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. Therefore, whether or not it is considered reliable, it shouldn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. -- You need to READ the source, whether through Google Translate or some AI translators. I personally find the Youxi Tuoluo article to be largely focused on Nahida's character design. SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read it, but it seems like a review of the new story/expansion at large, discussing the character of Nahida in an incidental manner while doing so. I'm not sure it rises to the level of SIGCOV within that summary. Assuming people do believe that it does, it's still just one source out of multiple ones needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree your point, though SIGCOV looks good enough for Chinese game media like Youxi Tuoluo. They rarely write article dedicated to fictional character only, as they (the good ones) care more about the real-world perspective than English media do.

Here is the third round source search:

Game Daily. A marginally reliable source, so not for GNG, though it might be useful in the article.
Youxi Putao. A generally reliable source, yet the article itself talks about lots of stuff, while Nahida is just a small portion of it. Might be SIGCOV, but that's even more up-to-debate than the Youxi Tuoluo article.

And three more passing mentions that might be useful for the article: Youxi Putao, Youxi Putao, Jinghe.

Heck, why not just write an article about Sumeru instead? My three source hunts have already proven that Sumeru is GNG. We can even think of one possible solution to be redirecting Nahida (Genshin Impact) to a section inside Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zh:须弥 (原神) is translation-worthy if anyone decides to write Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it then. As a Genshin fan I think it's about time I write a draft about it. I've gone ahead and done that at Draft:Sumeru (Genshin Impact). Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Youxi Tuoluo source is definitely useable, either in an article about Nahida (though maybe not to demonstrate notability) or in one about Sumeru as a whole. I found it quite informative and reliable. Gommeh 📖/🎮 14:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Singapore. jolielover♥talk 10:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where on-wiki was this discussed beforehand? Wherever it was, I must have missed it. Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Genshin Impact characters. I did a LOT of source searching for this character back in 2024 when I made the articles for Furina and Paimon. Unfortunately, there is not enough critical commentary towards Nahida herself to justify an article. It sucks because she IS mentioned in sources a lot (hence the refbombing), but none of it is substantial. The best there is is attribution or discussion of her popularity, but it's not actual reception. None of what is in the article right now, as a matter of fact, is reception. FYI Venti had stronger sourcing out there regarding him than Nahida, and that article was also redirected. There's just not enough here. λ NegativeMP1 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. @Gommeh: you can start moving content into List of Genshin Impact characters, in a concise manner. The List itself is very fancruft right now -- you may need to restructure it a bit. SuperGrey (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I will later, right now I have a few more important projects related to Genshin that I'm working on at the moment, including the Sumeru draft I mentioned earlier. I'd be more than willing to turn the article into a stub, but IDK if there's enough notability even for that. Would like to hear thoughts on that idea. Gommeh 📖/🎮 00:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and NegativeMP1. There's really not enough here that isn't just "The character sold well". The controversies section is using almost entirely unreliable sources. I don't really see much significant coverage here to justify a separate article from the list. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quick ping to User:SuperSkaterDude45, who, IIRC, is familiar with this topic area. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is some coverage of her trailer/teaser vides (ex. Siliconera [23], [24], Yahoo News [25], HappyGamer [26]; side note - it's a pretty solid video, I enjoyed it :P). GameRant's article is decent: [27]. Then there is this article in Indonesian journal [28], whose title translates as "Exploring Techniques and Methods for Translating Nahida's Quest Story Dialogue in Genshin Impact". I know, it's hardly premier scholarship, but overall I think she is notable. PS. I wonder if there would be more in Chinese sources? Ping User:Cunard. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is normally so selective of notability it is surprising to see you pointing to such highly trivial coverage as evidence of notability. GameRant is also a situational source and cannot be used for that. I disagree, and translating dialog shouldn't make a difference what character it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Draftify: I don't think there's much WP:SIGCOV here at the moment. I have been able to find a few more sources that aren't just announcements, sales stats or game guides: Screen Rant, GamesRadar+, but I'm not convinced there's enough even with these two. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone that has created two articles on Genshin Impact characters nearly two years ago, frankly I consider the standards for notability for video game characters to be absurd for many reasons that should be best be reserved for another day. What I will say is that Chinese sourcing once again, comes to the rescue as mentioned by other users, there's already a decent number of good sources both in the existing articles as well as ones provided here. My own finds currently include this article which explains her popularity amongst Chinese players and an article providing information on her origins to real world cultures and character design. There're definitely other sources out there that I'll uncover should I be inquired to but as of writing this, it's getting late, and I have University in a few hours from now but the current sourcing with the additional references here should be enough to demonstrate notability. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 06:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IguanaBee

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

Contested PROD by User:Kvng with no sources given demonstrating notability. No evident notability or passing of WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Chile. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find enough independent sourcing to justify keeping article around. There are some good sources in spanish, but not enough from what I can tell with limited spanish ability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MonsterBag. Most notable original game from the developer. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, do a WP:BEFORE first. Spanish Wikipedia has a fairly decent article with RS. *sighs* --Bedivere (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
O... kay...? Your point being? Reliable sources without significant coverage mean nothing. The vast majority of sources in the Spanish article are mostly about their games and give trivial lip service to the studio itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skull Island: Rise of Kong. Para ser justos, the Spanish Wikipedia page does have some good coverage even if that coverage was dedicated to furnishing a fairly straight development history. Looking at the coverage, there is almost an interesting and notable article to write here about the foundation of the studio and the poor conditions that gave rise to the disastrous release of Skull Island. But as it stands, that really is a single topic better dealt with within Skull Island: Rise of Kong. It falls short, sadly. Is there anything more broadly focused about the studio like the ABC article out there? Otherwise, strongly suggest not redirecting to MonsterBag: that article has obvious notability issues too. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus yet and two different suggested Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the citations in the Spansh version of the article sufficient to establish notbiblity. Specifically: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure these sources are not just about Skull Island: Rise of Kong? That game is indisputably notable for its poor quality but notability is not inherited by the studio unless the articles are specifically about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 is not about Skull Island. If there is significant coverage of the company in a source, it is not disqualifying if the source is not "about" the company. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSI Claw A8

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

Notability concerns. Written like an ad without demonstrating much independent notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. [34] [35][36][37] all point to standalone notability for the device, and while it's slightly on the edge of WP:TOOSOON, there is no indication that its coverage will diminish in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: this article should be merged with “MSI Claw A1M” under common name “Msi Claw”

GonzalezRio (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the potential rather than current state of the article, I see the possibility of both pages being fully fleshed out. I don't think a WP:OVERLAP is there, as they are entirely different systems. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Gehlen

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

Little established notability. Sources are of dubious reliability; only source close to passing GNG is a Daily Dot article. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Germany. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only sources available are interviews, which are not secondary sources, or are otherwise unreliable Starcraft fan websites and the like. Even the Daily Dot article feels more like a disguised promotional interview than an actual secondary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infestation: Origins

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

This game seems to not have had any notable media coverage since January 2024. I found one article from September 2024 saying that it would be available for early-access in October, but then no coverage after that point. It seems like this game gained a lot of attention when it was announced but has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disney. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. The only coverage so far is from trivial aspects of the game, the name and the usage of Mickey Mouse, with nothing of substance about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per zxcvbnm. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse, I wouldn't say delete this article since it is mentioned among the list of works featuring a public ___domain Mickey Mouse. And also, the game only got its notability because of Mickey Mouse's usage, and it's title. plant COAL 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse per above. Seems like a good WP:ATD-R target. --Mika1h (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse as an ATD, is agreeable as per the logic plant pointed above.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic State

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

Unreferenced with a lack of independent notability. Could not find any reliable sources proving its notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced list of games. Only found a book bio of Whittall. IgelRM (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to past declined PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources either, and I don't see a possible redirect. LightlySeared (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Arxel Tribe

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

I failed to find evidence that WP:NCORP was passed. This was the only instance of significant coverage that I found. There are some sources posted on the talk page, but they seem trivial, tangential, or unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Slovenia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article in its current state is a fairly obvious example of no business-specific coverage per WP:NOTWORK, in addition to policies such as WP:NCORP. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faust (video game). Most notable and well sourced article of the company's products. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They published or developed more than a dozen games, I don't see the point of redirecting to an arbitrary one even if it is the most popular. It would surely result in WP:SURPRISE for some. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of video game publishers. Some of the content/citations could be added to the notes section there and this would not be a SURPRISE redirect.4meter4 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to reach better consensus for a possible redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of video game publishers is meant for notable companies with their own articles. None of the individual games are that well known over the others that it would merit redirection. --Mika1h (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faust (video game) seems a sensible ATD for me if not at least to provide more context for the target article. As it is currently, seems not enough SIGCOV. Unsure of this source though so leaving it for others to comment. But this so far is more in depth than what I have found so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general, there's a certain tolerance for articles on topics that don't have a ton to say on the topic, but connect various other notable topics. I agree that SIGCOV is lacking and the topic's notability is questionable, but if we see the article instead as something like "List of games published by Arxel Tribe", it's fine as a simple connector. (As a second choice, redirect to a specific game that the studio made, sure - Faust I suppose.) SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NLIST, having a list would depend on the studio itself being a notable topic. There isn't any allowance for non-notable lists of a studio's games outside of maybe a category to connect them since it's usually defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faust (video game) - I don't see it as SURPRISE, redirects are cheap and recommended as an alternative to deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faust (video game): fails WP:NCORP. Not able to find much coverage, but seems the company existed and known for Faust (video game), which has good sources and also mentions this company. Asteramellus (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

[1] Lehtinen, Toni (15 February 2006). "Äidin kellarista maailmalle" [From mom's basement to the world]. Turun Sanomat (in Finnish). Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.

[2] Suolanen, Jouni (13 September 2006). "Frozenbyte kehitti peliään neljä vuotta" [Frozenbyte developed its game for four years]. Ilta-Sanomat (in Finnish). Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.

[3] Kovalainen, Jari (20 April 2009). "Frozenbyte ei ole juuttunut jäihin" [Frozenbyte hasn't gotten stuck in the ice]. Kauppalehti (in Finnish).

[4] Lappalainen, Elina [in Finnish] (30 October 2019). "Klassikkopelistudio Frozenbyte työllistää 130 vaikka liikevaihtoa on vain neljä miljoonaa – Julkaisi juuri jatkoa fantasiapelisarja Trinelle" [The classic game studio Frozenbyte employs 130 people even though its revenue is only four million – It just released a sequel to the fantasy game series Trine]. Kauppalehti (in Finnish).

[5] Lappalainen, Elina [in Finnish] (12 October 2011). ""Maksa mitä jaksat" -kampanja pelitti suomalaisstudiolle hyvät rahat" [The "pay what you want" campaign earned the Finnish studio good money]. Kauppalehti (in Finnish).

[6] Kauppinen, Jukka O. [in Finnish] (22 August 2005). "Frozenbyte – uusi suomalainen pelitalo parrasvaloihin (osa 1)" [Frozenbyte – a new Finnish game studio in the spotlight (part 1)]. Muropaketti [fi] (in Finnish). Otavamedia [fi]. Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.

[7] Kauppinen, Jukka O. [in Finnish] (24 August 2005). "Frozenbyte – uusi suomalainen pelitalo parrasvaloihin (osa 2)" [Frozenbyte – a new Finnish game studio in the spotlight (part 2)]. Muropaketti [fi] (in Finnish). Otavamedia [fi]. Archived from the original on 1 September 2025.

[8] ttps://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/roblox-faces-scrutiny-after-banning-youtuber-schlep-amid-ongoing-controversy/3813124/

[9] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/esports/news/who-is-schlep-roblox-youtuber-gets-account-banned-after-catching-alleged-child-predators-live-on-stream/articleshow/123238265.cms

[10] ttps://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/youtuber-says-roblox-threatened-him-194342647.html

[11] ttps://www.theteenmagazine.com/roblox-vs-youtuber-schlep-everything-you-need-to-know-future-documentary

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]