Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Floating Kingdoms

Floating Kingdoms (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)

Non-notable game. The article is constructed from WP:USERG sources like MobyGames and GameFAQs. The Metacritic page is empty. There's two situatonal review sources I can see: JayIsGames and Gamezebo: see WP:VG/S for why these aren't strong for notability. Just not enough here sadly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Jikkyō GI Stable

Jikkyō GI Stable (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)

Stub article consisting of exactly 4 sentences (the last of which is grammatically incorrect) and exactly one source, which I believe is unreliable. The only sources I could find for this game were YouTube, Fandom, and a few other WP:UGC sites. JHD0919 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Horse racing. JHD0919 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Dellor (gamer)

Dellor (gamer) (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)

Unable to find any source aside from ones in the article, which are both routine coverage. WP:NBIO fail. Fermiboson (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Fermiboson (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Fermiboson! I'm quite unfamiliar with the WP:ROUTINE guideline. Could you explain your reasoning for applying it to the sources here? Rockfighterz M (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps routine is not the correct formal wikiword - I rely upon trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Both articles are one-off events concerning the article subject and there is no in-depth coverage of the person beyond those one-off events, nor significant biographical information available in secondary sources. Fermiboson (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: The sources in this article are mostly unreliable. I'm not seeing anything that can be used to warrant a standalone WP:BLP here. Many of the sources pertain to an incident of racism on a streaming website. 11WB (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Note: This article was previously deleted by consensus for similar reasons just under two years ago. 11WB (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – coverage is largely limited to controversy-driven events and does not establish sustained independent notability under WP:GNG; reliance on social media and primary sources further weakens the case, and much of the content raises WP:BLP concerns. JournalJane (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of WP:RS. The subject does not pass WP:GNG. Retro music11 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Aventurine (Honkai: Star Rail)

Aventurine (Honkai: Star Rail) (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 understand the significant effort the author put into this article, but I don't believe the subject meets the notability requirements. Siliconera is the only source providing WP:SIGCOV? While the Valnet sources do not contribute to notability, and the Chinese sources appear to be the same. I performed a WP:BEFORE search, but there is no good, reliable source I can find. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: This meets general notability guidelines and WP:THREE. Siliconera, 3DM and Yahoo News fulfill the requirements for a standalone article. It should be noted that 3DM refers to Aventurine by their alternative name, "Kakavasha". For me, this is a clear case for keep. 11WB (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  While I'd like to see this kept, I do wonder if Yahoo News is reliable these days. Their "Contributors" remind me of Forbes "Contributors" (i.e. bloggers). Is there any editorial control for their entries? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Should be fine per WP:YAHOONEWS. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 11:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  What makes 3DM reliable? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is considered reliable on the Chinese Wikipedia. Generally the idea is if there is not a discussion on the English Wikipedia about a source, and there is one on another language's Wikipedia, enwiki inherits whatever was decided on that other language Wikipedia. In this case, the Chinese Wikipedia finds it to be reliable, so we should too. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 11:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I can confirm all three are reliable. To answer @Piotrus, Yahoo put out "assignments" to freelance writers, as is explained here. This, I imagine, is similar in process to WP:RB. They probably have discretion to reject articles that don't meet their standards. I think the cited article is fine personally. 11WB (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Siliconera, 3DM and Yahoo News all provide SIGCOV, and are all reliable sources. Therefore this clearly meets WP:THREE, as well as the SNG WP:NVGC. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 11:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  (Noting here that @Gommeh is the article author.) 11WB (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's right. To add on to my above comment, I have used all of the Chinese-language sources before with no issues. Based on the sheer amount of content from source 13 alone (3DM), I'd be surprised if that isn't SIGCOV. BP, I would recommend installing WP:CITEUNSEEN if you don't have it installed already, as it displays an icon indicating a source's general reliability next to it in the references section. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 11:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:CITEHIGHLIGHTER functions well in combination with Unseen! 11WB (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, that is interesting and perhaps this should be barely notable? While I'm not still 100% sure about the reliability of this Chinese source, I can leave this AFD run as is. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say this is a borderline case of notability at all actually. The reception section has a healthy amount of coverage, and I wouldn't take issue with notability if I were reviewing it as a GAN. 11WB (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly. I know my opinion is biased as the article's author, but to say that this is just "barely" notable is simply absurd with a reception section this big. There's an entire decent-sized paragraph worth of content from source 13 alone, not to mention content from Siliconera, UDN (which is in the same boat as 3DM) and the aforementioned Yahoo News. Having said all that, I would be okay with letting this run its course (for now at least) so others can give feedback, barring a potential WP:SNOW close if enough people !vote keep. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 12:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am pleasantly surprised by the Siliconera article. I have only really seen short translated posts from them, usually one or two paragraphs long with grammatical errors. 11WB (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The sourcing is fine, though I can understand some trepidation about some of the sources used, though I would suggest the raw 3DMgame url website tags be changed to 3DM (While the English wikipedia doesn't paint the best picture of that site, the Chinese one goes into significantly more detail).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep There's some degree of refbombing going on, but the article does pass GNG from the looks of the discussion above, and not even in a borderline way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you think this is a WP:REFBOMB, and what do you mean by "some degree"? I'd be happy to resolve those concerns. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 21:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

List of Fate/hollow ataraxia characters

List of Fate/hollow ataraxia characters (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)

Insufficient sources to justify a standalone list just for one specific visual novel in the Fate series. Should either be deleted, or else merged and redirected to List of Fate/stay night characters. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Anime and manga. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect, either to Fate/hollow ataraxia or to List of Fate/stay night characters; either would be acceptable I think, and I can't decide which one I would like more. Anyway, this list fails WP:NLIST as I can't find any sources that discuss the characters specifically as a group. I also think that WP:SALAT applies here too, because (if I understand it correctly, and please take this with a grain of salt as someone who is unfamiliar with the Fate series) one specific visual novel in general should not get its own dedicated list of characters; rather, it should be merged into the main article for the novel or the series of which it is a part. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 16:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect Veyhola (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

So should I just redirect this to List of Fate/stay night characters? Veyhola (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that would be improper now since it is at AFD. Wait until a consensus forms and, if other editors agree it should be redirected after about a week, then do it. But give them enough time to participate in the discussion. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fate/hollow ataraxia. The notable main characters (Shirou, Rin, Saber etc) have their own articles; everyone else can be covered at the game article. Not enough significant coverage for the other characters as a group. MidnightMayhem (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Fate/stay night characters or List of Fate/Grand Order characters (all the characters from FHA are present in FGO anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Have you been dealing with List pages? Have you even found any source discussing things specifically as a group (characters, programs, etc.)? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect – Sources discussing the characters specifically as a group indeed almost don't exist. Even if they're available, it must be difficult to retrieve them (i.e. take exhausting, long time). That's why many pages of character lists have been nominated for deletion for a few years, especially when it comes to anime. I'd recommend redirect to Fate/Hollow Ataraxia per above. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Bird Game 3

Bird Game 3 (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)

Nothing has changed about the sources since the last time this article was discussed. It still fails WP:SUSTAINED and lacks sufficient significant coverage in RS to overcome the topic's lack of long term significance. The redirect should be restored. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Popular culture, Artificial intelligence, and Internet. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging participants from the previous AfD; @Zxcvbnm, @Vrxces, @Ns1sou, @LaundryPizza03, @ApexParagon, @JustARandomSquid, and @KarelOrHarken555. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• This looks more like a discussion with Celtoi about reverting the redirect. – The Grid (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  The redirect was restored already by @NegativeMP1 and Celtoi restored the article, saying, Renominate, I'll wait. So here we are. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  An odd statement to make for Celtoi. There's already been consensus from ~2 months, I would also think the sources don't change the outcome here. The onus is on them to demostrate WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so... Have you seen the previous article though? Compared to what I wrote later, it's two different articles with different level of source coverage and different structure. My article cites 12 sources, 14 if we include unused, and I am very sure we can find more if we need more.

The original nomination included WP:MILL and WP:SUSTAINED. I believe that the topic proved its importance through several different projects existing on Steam currently; Steam isn't a collection of random ideas, if users upload their projects there, they have serious ambitions to release it; one project collected more than 5000 users in their Discord server, and still make regular updates about the game. This also should remove all questions about notability of the topic. Previous nomination also included WP:NOTNEWS, which contains primarily the same point.

The existence of separate projects is also the reason why I decided to add an infobox and make the article in such type. We can attempt making the article more centred around actual projects being released, but the original concept of Bird Game 3 as an Internet Phenomenon should still be included as part of their history. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The existence of Bird Game 3 games in development on Steam does not prove notability. See WP:ITEXISTS.

As for your sources: most of them were already cited in the version of the article that existed when it was first nominated for deletion. I'll focus on the new ones here.

Overall, these are all mostly very sketchy sources that do not prove the subject's notability. The only new reliable source does not give the subject any SIGCOV. This looks to me like a classic case of WP:REFBOMBing. I am unconvinced. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Publishing a game on Steam only requires $100. Have you seen the AI slop on there through the years? If you want to talk about the meme, probably Know Your Meme is the place to do so. (Which does exist) – The Grid (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you deny indirect evidences, then there's much less. Provided (even in the previous version) articles mentioned many developing video games, the fact that they are still being developed by now should at least say something about the notability. On Wikipedia we should use common sense first, and then the guidelines, I believe.

playground.ru is, actually, a pretty old Russian websites which was active since 2004; I don't believe it's "an unknown website seeking engagement". The game linked below is related to Bird Game 3; for future: this isn't a single game, this is a big hoax franchise including "Bird Game 2", "Bird Game 1" and etc.

The daily.afisha source does provide deep enough coverage I believe (though as you mentioned it's a bunch of TikToks), and it's actually part of Afisha magazine, which is also really old and should be reliable. Selfpublsihed source was used, as you might imagine, just for the information.

mmo13 source isn't really a database entry, it is written by the website itself and contains original text and a small review. And no, they are not building a Frankenstein, they are covering different games, but all of them have the idea from the hoax AI-generated Bird Game. All games appear at primarily the same time and the mentioned "Bird Game" project contains obvious references to the original idea, like "Steal the eggs" gamemode that was suggested in TikTok.

If you want something from 2026, then I can offer you Kotaku and IGDB entries and a playstation entry for a different game. Other than that you won't get much indeed, but the development and regular updates of these games should act as a proof of sustainability. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

That Kotaku link is a database entry automatically generated from scraping data on the internet. IGDB is user-generated and therefore not reliable. The PlayStation store page is just a PlayStation store page, and at best, a primary source. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, playground.ru being old does not in and of itself indicate reliability. Even if they were at one point reliable, they may very well no longer be. They could have been an anonymous blog since 2004, or maybe at one point they were a legit publication but started relying on LLMs. Since their editorial policy and authorship isn't clear, there's really no way we can tell. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

and even then arguing WP:COMMONSENSE would make me think if there's a better target because I don't see the notability – The Grid (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The previous redirect target of List of Internet phenomena#Bird Game 3 was just fine. Mostly the only thing I think needs to change after this is that, assuming this AfD result is the same as last time, the redirect needs to be fully protected so that it can't be re-established as an article without first seeking consensus in favor of recreation from the community. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is... very questionable actions from y'all. I can't help myself but to see how you want to destroy the article just because; sorry if you see this as a personal insult.

Anyway, the full protection isn't needed here. The existence of other projects makes it possible for updates in future, full protection makes no sense.

The previous article had enough reliable sources, if we are talking abot reliability. They are rtbf, 2 articles on Polygon, GameRant and GameStar; this articles focuses on new projects more because they are expected to make some news in the future. If it makes more sense, then we can change the article completely into a more phenomenon-focused key. I also started this discussion because I believe that the previous articles wasn't defended well. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

We're not trying to "destroy" the article, and this appeal to emotion is not a valid argument here (see WP:PLEASEDONT). I'm just suggesting full protection because this is the second time this article has been nominated in about as many months, and articles about popular internet memes tend to be recreated frequently, which wastes the time of the community. I just think it'd be prudent to get ahead of that.

The notion that the meme is more notable because there are real "Bird Game 3"s in development, and "they are expected to make some news in the future" is also not a valid counterargument. Firstly, because it fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ITEXISTS. But secondly, because just as existence doesn't prove notability, nonexistence doesn't disprove notability.

Memes about nonexistent things can absolutely be notable. As an example, see Goncharov (meme). I had a hand in creating this article. Initially it was just a list entry at List of Internet phenomena, but, it later garnered significant coverage in reliable sources and became worthy of a standalone article. Despite there being no Goncharov film existing, the meme was absolutely proven to be notable, and even reached "Good Article" status. It got enough WP:SUSTAINED and WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage that even though it's not getting much new coverage, it doesn't need any new coverage.

I don't think Bird Game 3 is likely to become notable like Goncharov did. The attempts to make it real look like shovelware made solely to cash in on the SEO value of the term. The most recent coverage on it was, far as I've seen, around July last year, and most of the sources on it are just quoting the 1 or 2 other sources with no new details coming to light. Maybe I'm wrong, and in the future, Bird Game 3 will become notable in some capacity. But we cannot know that right now, and so to make a standalone article for it is jumping the gun. Right now, it's only got enough notability to go where Goncharov would have stayed if more coverage for it had not emerged- as a brief entry in the internet phenomena list. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hahah, this wasn't a WP:PLEASEDONT, I'm just pretty experienced with such situations, and always wonder the philosophy of some people. Nothing's wrong though, I wrote most of my arguments about sources below.

It's not WP:CRYSTAL, it should be WP:TOOSOON as I wrote; last mentions and entries on the topic were exactly about those games on Steam. If you really think it's all WP:CRYSTAL, then it also shows that we see the situation differently, and that's also the reason why I'm questioning the philosophy of some people.

We have 3-5 reliable sources on our topic. Is that enough? I believe yes. So again if it fails WP:SUSTAINED then I guess it's just too early, but definitely not in the situation where there won't be any sources and everything should be protected and forgotten.

I also don't understand the "July last year" line. It refers to...?

At any case, if sources I just mentioned in my another comment aren't enough for you, we should make a normal-sized entry on Internet Phenomenon. Maybe, when I first saw it there, it was my largest question - "despite there are many sources and enough reliable ones, why is it so short?". From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The PlayStation store entry can only be used for proving the game is on a platform and release dates. So... not useful. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Looked a little further into each of the three Russian sources with Google Translate. From what I found, it looks like these are their editorial policies: , ,

These policies all appear very thin on the ground, and it doesn't look like any of their contributors have any credentials listed (and it isn't clear who's writing the playground.ru articles, if anyone at all), so I'm inclined to default to all of these being unreliable unless anyone has any compelling evidence otherwise.

All the other sources seem generally at least probably reliable, but as mentioned before they were all in the previous incarnation of the article that was redirected, so their presence here doesn't overturn the previous consensus. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe Afisha is reliable, but that seems like probably it. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Afisha is indeed expected to be reliable; mmo13 and Playground seem like additional sources with very questionable reliability.

Don't know if we need to seek more reliable sources, since the previous article already provided sources with enough reliability, and the main problem I believe was WP:SUSTAINED. So several months past, most of new mentions are based on user-generated (though still pretty in depth) sources like this, this and this and some other entries and self-published websites like this, this and already discussed Kotaku. I also managed to find this Dutch source, which still feels questionable though.

If this is not enough for at least an indirect proof of sustainability, then long story short it's mainly WP:TOOSOON, and we probably should transport most of the text into Internet Phenomena article with the possibility of looking towards creating a full article in future. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any merging of the article text is needed; just redirecting. The text at the list entry is already a sufficient summary, and to add more there would be WP:UNDUE. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Eh, the article there provides more info on some topics and less info on other topics (including usage of images). We definitely can expand the text there to a certain point, if we are going to merging the article again (I still hope though that aside from two of us there are other people, and some of them might find my provided sources and ideas more attractive, maybe). From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: So it's not a game, but a collection of games that might get published? TOOSOON. Source 10 and 11 are the only RS, and they talk about a meme, not really about a game. "Cool meme, lets make a game/games about it" isn't really notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  The previous incarnation of the article was better in that it was more focused on the meme about the nonexistent game, akin to the article on Goncharov, which made much more sense. The games, if they did get released and become notable, would be a different subject entirely. If notability was shown and the article kept, I'd argue we'd be better off restoring and building upon the previously redirected version, in which the in-development "Bird Games" were mostly a footnote. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  But yeah, I'm in agreement with you, in any case. Whether this is a meme, or a game, or whatever, it hasn't been shown to meet WP:NPRODUCT, WP:NGAME, or WP:NWEB. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Restore redirect per nom. There is still a lack of enough reliable coverage. मल्ल (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If we are talking about coverage, we have RTBF, 2 articles on Polygon, GameRant and GameStar sources. They are pretty much enough for a separate article, and there are lots of other sources that should help proving the notability and coverage. Anything regarding notability here is very, very questionable; the only real problem is the WP:SUSTAINED, which should be proved by the existence of many separate projects based on the game. Otherwise it's WP:TOOSOON which should at least prevent us from protecting the page completely, like @SilviaASH suggested. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON is an essay and suggests on moving the article to draftspace. I am not seeing the notability here and perhaps should look back at the discussion from the AfD for Sequel of Spore. WP:SIRS provides a breakdown of the sourcing merits. There's no meat with the sources. It more or less says the item is in a liminal space between states of being. Not quite dead, not quite alive. – The Grid (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

By notability you mean what exactly in this context? There exists 5-6 reliable sources on the topic and several more with situational reliability; they all provide significant coverage and they are independent; I seriously can't understand any claims on the notability of the topic, can you please elaborate further? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not just about the number of available sources. GNG is a widely accepted baseline, but only that. There are plenty of situations in which a standalone article is considered unnecessary or inappropriate, in spite of having plenty of sources in a numerical sense. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't know if a topic that generated other projects with thousands of interested people and mets basic criteria of the amount of reliable sources isn't notable. It might not be very notable indeed, but I fell like a redirect is a bit small for such topic; I hope we can at least agree at not calling it "another generic AI slop". From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

While something having zero reliable sources is never notable, something having reliable sources is not a guarantee of notability. Per WP:GNG:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion (editor's note: we are here) might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I'd also like to note that you've already made a lot of these points. I think you've made your feelings on the matter incredibly clear and restating your opinion in response to every dissenting comment (like Zxcvbnm's below) is not constructive. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Eh, maybe you're right. But, I still have some complainments.

Specifically, that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but the only thing we do here is citing various "rules", despite Wikipedia has no strict rules, only recommendations. The main problem is the semi-"democratic" nature of deletion nominations, which favors the rule-driven approach maybe too much. Again, don't see this as an assault, but people like you and @Zxcvbnm (for example) are the main guests on every deletion discussion, and if you all try to push your guideline opinion, it is impossible to express any other opinion, such as mine, with indirect evidences and etc; thus leaving about 0 maneuvering area, so if someone like you tries to delete or redirect an article, they will with 95% chance succeed. I believe that for some articles that are very close to being "normal" in your view, you might've made an excuse and let them live, because deleting such articles is very close to being harmful. Again, this is not begging, this is just a recommendation to review some of your actions in deletion discussions, because I have a feeling this might be a hidden, and despite not so major, but problem on Wikipedia.

Don't know if I made this already clear, but I can agree on making a redirect. Though, I insist on making the entry about it on Internet Phenomena article significantly bigger than it is currently (within the bounds of common sense, of course) and without placing a protection higher than the Extended confirmed protection on the redirecting page. Thank you) From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect Basically still a nothingburger. And while there are plenty of unplayably bad video games made by humans, I don't know if rewarding non-notable AI slop videos with a Wikipedia slot sets a great precedent. It should be something that is beyond a doubt a major phenomenon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, now I understand the reason behind most deletion discussions, thank you. I suppose, some people think of Wikipedia as a highly prestigious source where topics are "rewarded" with having a place in. But other people think otherwise, and I, for example, believe, that Wikipedia should contain everything that has minimum notability, like at least 3 in-depth reliable sources, and in our case we have such sources.

  The topic created visible reception from the media, many indirect evidences of that exist. Don't know if it can be called "another non-notable AI slop", because a really unnotable AI slop doesn't have any reliable sources on it. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  The gist of the matter is that it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and is therefore non-notable, regardless of the amount of sources on the matter. A momentary curiosity should, by policy, not be an article unless it has demonstrated cultural or societal impact. It still might, but odds are that even if a game is successfully made based on this concept, it is the game that will be notable.

  So no, this page doesn't even have minimum levels of notability. If it did, I'd be all for keeping it. Furthermore, the amount of arguing you are doing here for something so minor is unbelievable. Why die on this hill, maybe go write articles for some non AI games. People here aren't even saying this will never be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect I think this is better evaluated as a meme than a product of media. Thoughts about the quality of the content or whether such a game is too soon or whether that game would be independently notable once released is not really relevant. This has conflicting implications for the article's notability; in its favor I don't think it needs evidence of a future release, or review coverage, or there having to be a tangible 'game'; that's an unfair standard - it's a meme about a fake game series, not a game in itself. But when you don't have coverage about a tangible, static 'thing' to seek coverage on and more a loosely tied collection of things, you probably do need more sustained and in-depth coverage about the meme that connects the dots; there's a lot of WP:RS doing a lengthly play-by-play of the what videos are out there, but the commentary is mostly descriptive. There's some occasionally analytical statements, like RTBF opining it reflects a parody of the habits and foibles of the video game industry , but also a mockery of all kinds of viral videos about video games, but not enough to strongly support the article. I think most coverage restates the same thing; WP:ONEEVENT isn't really relevant here, but comes to mind for articles whose content largely repeat the same information because that's all there is to it. And on that basis, it'd be easy to cover the substance of this in a list of memes. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - is Know Your Meme considered reliable? KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's user generated. WP:KNOWYOURMEME silviaASH (inquire within) 11:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Aphelion (video game)

Aphelion (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)

Unsourced and a simple Google search is yielding no substantial coverage in RS, meaning it likely fails notability as a stand-alone article. Already moved to draft and moved back without substantial improvements. Mariamnei (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be at least somewhat notable. I was able to find this on Pure Xbox but it is nowhere near SIGCOV. I also found a preview from TechRadar, which is reliable and appears to be SIGCOV. Same for this piece on the trailer by GamesRadar+ and this analysis on Polygon. I found this interview which is clearly a WP:PRIMARY source on TechRaptor. I saw this brief article from Rock Paper Shotgun — not SIGCOV, but could definitely be cited. Finally, I found this preview analysis from Hardcore Gamer, which is a situational source. At the very least, I think we have at least WP:TWOSOURCES (I'm skeptical about WP:THREE), so it should at least meet GNG. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 13:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I have added some RS into the article and it should meet WP:GNG now. OceanHok (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, now sourced. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Pretty easy keep. Credit to @OceanHok for performing a WP:HEYMAN on this article! 11WB (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, meets GNG with enough reliable sources. MidnightMayhem (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep wide and deep coverage. Looks like an interesting game too. I might need to get it. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

List of highest-earning Fortnite players

List of highest-earning Fortnite players (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:NLIST. Reliable sources do not cover this specific grouping. I could find references to the highest-earning eSports players ( , ), but those cover all games. The ESTNN source cited covers the best Fortnite players, but their methodology is not based on earnings. The HotSpawn source does, but I've never heard of this publication. Esports Charts appears to be a raw database. No other cited sources cite the grouping. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: "I've never heard of them" is a weird way to dismiss a source. They appear to cover eSports topics. SenshiSun (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Shorthand for having no evidence they're a reliable source. They lack a published editorial policy and process that would speak to accuracy. I see no use by others that would establish a reputation for being reliable. They haven't been assessed as reliable by WP:RSN or WP:VG/S. Failing any positive evidence, my prior is that they are not reliable. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find WP:TWOSOURCES that meet the requirements set by WP:NLIST, let alone WP:THREE. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Fortnite Championship Series winners, since it only list those who won a championship and how much money they made from it. This is not a list of all Category:Fortnite players. It doesn't list Ninja (gamer) whose article mentions he made over ten million dollars. Since the news media does list how much money they make in their championships, that information can be added to a column at the proper list article. Dream Focus 21:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  I believe Ninja had earned over ten million dollars from streaming, not tournament prize money. That's why he's not included. Rockfighterz M (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Two other sources that list the highest-earning Fortnite players are esports.gg and Tracker Network. I thought it appropriate to mention them here. Rockfighterz M (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Fortnite Championship Series winners as best WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep given the sources mentioned above. Rockfighterz M (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Note: This editor is the article author. 11WB (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Game feel

Game feel (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)

Vague buzzword and few sources. It never gained traction as a term in the wider community. There was a book someone wrote, someone did a Game Developer Conference presentation on it, and that's about it. The page feels highly promotional for this book. At best, if the page was trimmed down, the information contained might be relevant for one-two sentences on another article, not a full article itself.

Page was made by NaTaHu (talk · contribs) whose contributions are almost entirely around creating this page and hasn't edited since 2016.

Source analysis:

• 1. The book itself.
• 2. Maybe a source to a fluff journal? Journals produce a lot of fluff content.
• 3. A youtube video
• 4. A source discussing "GameFlow" from 2005, which is not the term "Game Feel". Article says these are related terms.
• 5. Gamasutra, which is written by the book author itself.
• 6. Another Youtube vid.
• 7. Video of a GDC presentation on said buzzword.

Conclusion: This page should be deleted. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep a very cursory WP:BEFORE turned up multiple sources on google scholar: . Lots of different authors here so it seems to be an accepted term in the field. I've certainly heard of it before in reviews and podcasts. What makes you say the currently cited journal article (Pichlmair & Johansen) is fluff? It seems legitimate to me. The article is in bad shape but the term appears to be notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Since I saw this was relisted, just briefly popping back in to highlight that SYNTH, PROMO, and NOTDICT are all content problems, of which the article is acknowledged to have many. However, the main (only?) issue that is meant to be litigated at AFD is notability, not content. A perfect article, content-wise, should still be deleted if it is not notable; a notable article should not be deleted, regardless of the poor state of its content (although draftifying it temporarily may be wise). Axem Titanium (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but this isn't true. SYNTH and PROMO are both policies. If an article is just an advertisement, or is entirely OR synthesised from different sources, these are absolutely relevant to an AfD. 11WB (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  They are content policies, as noted by the navigation box at the top of those pages. Content problems are fixable, including with WP:TNT. Notability problems are not. You can remove all the SYNTH/OR/PROMO/other problematic content and still have a notable article. You cannot make a non-notable article notable with content. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: 'The term has no agreed upon definition'? How can there be a Wikipedia article on something that has no agreed upon definition. Even if there was an agreed upon definition, it would violate WP:NOTDICT. Whilst the academic papers that have been linked are reliable, they don't specifically use "game feel" as a set term. They appear to all be about different things. The first one linked above by @Axem Titanium itself states 'definitions of the concept remain vague'. This feels like WP:SYNTH to me. It seems these sources have been compiled to force an article on a "concept" that is still being written. Either way, with three of the current references cited to WP:YOUTUBE, this should either be draftified or deleted. My preference is on the latter. 11WB (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  I do believe the page is mostly to promote the book. WP:PROMOTIONAL. The user who made it only came here to make the page, or to insert links to the page making it nearly a perfect Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The book and term did not catch on, didn't get reviews, and is irrelevant. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  The article reads as encyclopedic, however the term is too vague (which even the academic papers state) to qualify for a page. 11WB (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Per Axem Titanium. WP:NOTCLEANUP, it is a notable topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The nomination says it well. It's hard to see why Wikipedia should have this article. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Well done to Axen Titanium for bringing in those papers. They all appear to be Primary Sources when detailing the scholars' research, but after checking the open access papers Bhatnagar et al, Dahl & Kraus and Mikkelsen & Wirman have literature reviews which give secondary WP:SIGCOV to the topic. This is a slam dunk of a keep.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Significant coverage or not. None of the !keeps at this AfD have addressed either policy point raised by the other side, namely WP:NOTDICT and WP:PROMO. 11WB (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT isn't relevant here, there are multiple reliable sources which discuss the nature of the concept and various aspects of it as a subject in and of itself. The fact the article is bad, and perhaps promotional, means we should improve the article and remove the promotional content. It doesn't mean we should delete an article which clearly passes WP:GNG.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Both policies are absolutely relevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page serves to explain a (still not agreed upon) definition (NOTDICT). The definition itself was invented by somebody, of which the page serves as an advertisement for (PROMO). Whether or not it has SIGCOV, or passes GNG (which I would argue it doesn't based on the source analysis provided by the nominator), policy takes precedence over that. 11WB (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT does not state we cannot use an article to define something. Most, perhaps all, articles do this. This article goes into depth on the different aspects of gamefeel, and as such is fine. The references currently on the page probably pass WP:GNG, but the ones linked by Axem Titanium very clearly give WP:SIGCOV so there's not much left to discuss.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem. If you don't wish to discuss this, there need not be a discussion. 11WB (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per GNG, multiple sources have been provided. WP:NOTDICT is not relevant because the article is about the concept, not the term. The article is not promotional, it was created by a student editor. Pages written by them are poor, but unlikely to have COI issues. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Axem and others. It is clear that the only problems with the article are related to its current state and not its notability. These issues should be tagged for fixing, and the article should be kept. The term not having an agreed upon definition is not a problem; Wikipedia has plenty of articles on topics that have received significant coverage of diverging views, and our job in such instances is not to provide an absolute definition but instead to summarize the broad strokes and most prominent viewpoints (Metaverse is one analogous example). silviaASH (inquire within) 09:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)