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

List of Pokémon characters

AfDs for this article:

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

So to clarify here; this list is discussing the human characters in this series. The fictional species are covered at a variety of lists, most notably List of Pokémon. With that out of the way, let me elaborate.

WP:LISTN defines that the notability of lists is inherently dependent on the notability of the group; i.e, a list of human characters in this series needs to have sources discussing human characters as a whole. From my WP:BEFORE search, the only sources covering this as a group are WP:VALNET sources, which do not confer notability per our guidelines. Most hits for things like "Pokémon characters" are discussing the fictional species of Pokémon, not the human characters in the series, and the few that do discuss humans are either not discussing them as a group, discussing only one particular character (Such as Team Rocket), or are VALNET sources. Every Books or Scholar hit I could find was discussing how the Pokémon species have been interpreted, not any of the human characters. The only real potential hit I found is Newsweek discussing LGBT characters [[1]], but even that is just a summary of stuff existing more than an actual analysis.

Compared to the other human character list for this series (List of Pokémon anime characters), which at least has the potential for a WP:SIZESPLIT given how long the anime's gone for with such a large recurring supporting cast, the Pokémon games comparatively have fewer recurring characters. The bulk of the characters, and indeed the bulk on this list, largely only appear in one game, and are relegated to cameos after their debut. While there are a select few recurring entities like Professor Oak or Cynthia (Pokémon), these few characters are exceptions more than the norm. The vast bulk of these characters could easily be redirected to their debut game, with the few recurring characters easily able to be slotted into a smaller, more condensed character list at Pokémon (video game series) that I'd be willing to work on myself. This list should easily be able to slot into that article without causing bloat once all of the one off characters are redirected back to their original articles, which should prevent UNDUE concerns.

In brief, while the Pokémon species are notable, this separate list for other recurring human characters does not have the same group discussion, nor does it have a valid SIZESPLIT spinout rationale. This list could easily be condensed to slot into another article, and thus overall is unnecessary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Lists, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect/incorporate characters to their relevant video game articles per nom. -- LWG ^talk 18:45, 13 June 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Messed up reading Metacritic and only looked at the Xbox tab. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 15:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaonic

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources cited in article are not reliable, and searching only turns up a Gameplay (Benelux) review indexed in MobyGames. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metacritic search comes up with Vandal and IGN reviews, showing it does pass the notability bar. It also merits WP:TROUT for not looking in such a blatant place as Metacritic first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to Vandal and IGN, there is a review by Sentinel & Enterprise: [2]. --Mika1h (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Metacritic reviews alone would indeed put this past the bar of coverage needed for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:32, 13 June 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.

Macologist

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:WEBSITE. The sources cited in the article either don't look reliable or don't mention Macologist. This one is good, but lacks WP:SIGCOV. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A volunteer project with a couple mentions in magazines, perhaps some relevance to Apple community, Delete. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Xiaochuan

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little reliable significant coverage online, with Baidu and Bilili being cited in a majority despite being clearly unreliable sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and China. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wraith Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage and sources used consists of simple mentions or obscure websites of dubious reliability, with reliable significant coverage being in the minority. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Ohio. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is my belief that the main problem with the article is that it is old. There appear to be newer sources of higher notability and reliability stating not only much of the same information as in the article currently, but there is new information as well. It is likely that only some information will need to be removed, if at all. Sirkidd2003 (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Journal-News article is SIGCOV, but there isn't much else to go on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a local article, concurring Delete. IgelRM (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahaha Studios

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only demonstrated notability is gaining funding with little significant coverage to support. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Finland. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heir (tournament)

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

Lack of sigcov and available sources; article itself is very short and poorly sourced while also being orphaned. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United Kingdom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was borderline at best when I created it, and they stopped their activities soon afterwards so their coverage will not grow. Happy to admit I was wrong on this one :) Exilexi (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavinho em o Enigma da Esfinge

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

Orphaned article with little content; the original game has little sigcov of note, with only notable coverage being reviews of the remake, with individual review websites being of unclear reliability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Brazil. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of the sites covering the remake seem reliable: [3], [4]. But there is no significant coverage, only announcements of the remake, no critical analysis. --Mika1h (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamla (game)

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

I am concerned the article fails WP:GNG. I am not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. The article features some reliable sources, but coverage is not significant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and India. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about it failing WP:GNG. It didn't receive much coverage because it is an indie game from a country where game development is still in its fledgeling state. This is still more coverage than the likes of Bhag Corona or Ghajini – The Game, which have been retained in spite of the lack of coverage due to the same reason.

At least it has received significant coverage from reliable sources like ABP News and IGN India, so instead of deleting the article, it will be better to just remove the bits that you feel are from the unreliable sources. Pur 0 0 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than arguing you should prove me incorrect by posting the precise sources that prove I am incorrect. If there are none, then I am probably right.

Furthermore it seems like Ghajini – The Game was not "retained" but was simply not noticed. This is different than being kept in a deletion discussion. Not every new article is vetted or checked for notability, many can and will slip through the cracks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. Are 16 sources not enough? If they are not, then go through this list and look at how many sources the games have from countries with less than 30 games. Because of them I was misled into believing this much coverage is supposed to be enough, and wasted hours of my life on creating this article. Either remove those games too which have no significant coverage, or let mine slip through the cracks too. Pur 0 0 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Metacritic shows no critic reviews] and I don't think what is in the article at present is enough significant coverage to substitute the lack of reviews. λ NegativeMP1 03:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I empathise that it can be harder to get niche indie games across the line, but if there isn't any significant coverage nor review coverage, it just isn't demonstrating that the game is notable. IGN India and similar sources are dedicated to pre-release or basic release information - not covering the game in-depth or offering any opinion about it. This just tends to be an echo of whatever the publisher put in their presskit. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has a notable audience in India. It has 10 million downloads on Google Play Store and, while I can't see the number of downloads on the iOS store, it is #1 in Action for iPad. On YouTube, if you look up Kamla horror game and sort by number of views, it goes up to 50 million. It also has a category on Twitch, something niche indie games don't easily get, especially not Indian games, due to a lack of Indian audience there.

Sources for claims:

Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.madmantragames.kamla&hl=en-US&pli=1

iOS App Store: https://apps.apple.com/in/app/kamla-horror-exorcism-escape/id6740549149 (I don't know if the rank will be shown the same, but for me it says #1 in Action)

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kamla+horror+game&sp=CAM%253D

Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/kamla-an-indian-horror-experience Pur 0 0 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITSPOPULAR for why that isn't a valid argument here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beenox

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The most prominent coverage I found is after the acquisition from gamesindustry.biz. A list of games alone is as good as a games developed by Beenox category. I suggest a redirect to Activision and perhaps a merge of the paragraph of the founder departure and new office. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision as nominated based on WP:NCORP. Studio articles that function as little else as lists of games don't demonstrate the notability of the developer without deeper coverage - see thoughts at WP:NOTWORK. That coverage is not really there once you take out all the On X date, Beenox released Y title content. That said, it's not very weak, just not enough to justify an article on presented sourcing. Could be if more of the ilk like the GamesIndustry.biz coverage is found. This outlet seems to have had a porting role in a large number of high-profile games. Is there more out there? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The below sources have established the existence of coverage to warrant a keep. Thanks to @Tanonero: and @Hannes Röst: for taking a look and finding more sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces: I am just curious, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but wouldn't it have been easier if you had looked for the sources yourself and ascertained the potential notability of the article, instead of opening a deletion process? I missread the thread. --Tanonero (msg) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough history to show the company's progression and its relevance within the game industry. There is also plenty of coverage on GamesIndustry.biz to demonstrate the company's notability and that can easily be integrated into the article, for instance, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and many more. Wikipedia would gain nothing by deleting this article. --Tanonero (msg) 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I linked the 3 source in my nomination already. Further the 1 source is an interview about places to work, which generally don't add notability. The 4 source is an interview about Activision and licensed games.

From a WP:BEFORE, the founder Dominique Brown has more coverage than this company. What this AFD tries to achieve is more equal appliance of policy that isn't a video game database. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think there is enough there to justify an article, some more articles from different sources [5] [6] [7] and the article contains more than just a list of titles. --hroest 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2 sources are press releases and after Activision's acquisition. Edit Correction: the 3 source is about Activision and the developer staffing up for Call of Duty, not particular significant? IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision#Studios, that one Gamesindustry.biz article cited by nominator seems to be the only piece of significant coverage. Interviews and press releases are considered primary sources. GameRant article is by WP:VALNET so it shouldn't be used for notability but it's also fairly standard coverage of personnel hiring, trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. --Mika1h (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sprked

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It was a short-lived game curation and crowdfunding platform launched in 2015 that is now defunct. The official website now redirects to an unrelated blog, its social media accounts are deleted or inactive, and it is listed as "Closed" on Crunchbase. The only coverage comes from two nearly identical 2015 articles (Engadget and Yahoo), which are insufficient to establish notability as they lack significant, independent, in-depth analysis. Per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT, this subject does not merit a standalone article. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Tagged as advertisement at its creation and still in that state. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Untagged, not clearly promotional in my view. Better to settle the notability question properly by letting the debate here run its course. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This grabitmagazine article has a few details but at most redirect to Video_game_modding#Controversy_surrounding_paid_mods.

IgelRM (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic fails to meet the WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.CresiaBilli (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hitbox (web series)

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

Contested blanking and redirection. Only cites a non-independent Reddit QnA and an IMDb entry, which is unreliable. I could not find any sources indicating notability of the series. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Australia. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glitch Productions. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZeptoLab

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

Whilst the 'Cut the Rope' game is clearly notable, I don't think the company ZeptoLab actually is. They only get a passing mention in most of the sources - I am yet to find significant coverage of ZeptoLab - and this is reflected in the content of the article. The article's main content is about 'Cut the Rope' and otherwise only serves as a list of Cut the Rope spin-off games they have created, which we already have at Cut the Rope (video game). OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Companies. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cut the Rope as an WP:ATD, the article looks like it discusses the game as a franchise. – The Grid (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several sources: Pocket Gamer [8] [9], The Village [10], Kommersant [11], GQ Russia [12], Venturebeat [13], Fast Company [14] [15], Bloomberg [16]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not all, but most, of the references listed by Jovamilic97 meet WP:ORGCRIT so that would put it over the hurdle for meeting WP:NCORP. Coupled by the book references found I would say the company is more than notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, clearly notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep; significant Russian sources signify notability. But the article certainly needs WP:FIXABLE significant work. IgelRM (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Team GrisGris

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

No reliable sources, appears to fail WP:NCORP, possible redirect to Corpse Party. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace It seems like some effort has been put into this company's Wikipedia page, but it seems to have no sources of note or that meet Wikipedia standards. Rather than simply deleting, I would move it to the draftspace to continue to gather sources. PickleG13 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corpse Party, does not demonstrate passing of WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at first instance - draftifying is nice, but a cursory search doesn't yield a lot unless there is WP:NONENG coverage out there. The article patently fails WP:NCORP and the article is written in a way that merely lists the games published instead of providing background information - see WP:NOTWORK. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Bros.

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

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. The article relies solely on primary sources, and reliable ones seem to not exist as per my research. SleepyRedHair (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glitch Productions. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth or secondary sourcing has been identified to support the general notability of the channel. Google News yields no mentions by reliable sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)

Lodestone Games

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

This video game company appears to have only worked on one game, PlanetSide, with two others being cancelled and the company becoming defunct. As such there doesn't appear to be any sources about the company, including when it dissolved. GamerPro64 05:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, Companies, and Virginia. GamerPro64 05:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PlanetSide (video game). I added a mention to the article about Lodestone Games. --Mika1h (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above on current sourcing. Studio articles whose sourcing is non-existent or mostly focused on a game rather than the studio itself may run afoul of notability: see WP:NOTWORK for this rationale. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I only found a PR on Jameson's background. IgelRM (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Character info are mostly unsourced with release info sources being unreliable. Not a plausible search term to be redirected. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive plotcruft, no context given. WP:INDISCRIMINATE failed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. I've seen similar lists survive deletion before, but that's where the sourcing covers the entire information presented, and doesn't go overboard with plot minutiae. Given the principle that plot is generally self-sourced from the work, the first part is more fatal to WP:NLIST than the latter. It is way too much though. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article was split from the main Uma Musume Pretty Derby article last March, which had 223k bytes prior to the split, and the character list made up a good chunk of that at the time. While I'm not sure if the list as is is particularly well written, I also don't think that merging it back in to the main article would be helpful for the average reader, let alone deleting the article outright with no explanation of who makes an appearance. --Jnglmpera (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the appropriate decision would have been to significantly trim the list instead of spinning it out. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. These characters are mentioned in reliable sources (as used in the article and per WP:A&M/ORS) which include Anime News Network, Nikkan Sports, Comic Natalie and Oricon. In my opinion the character list needs to be trimmed down to just the main characters with character descriptions taken from the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions alone aren't enough, the sources need to be significantly in-depth on the characters specifically for notability. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I narrowed the article's scope to just include the horse girl characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects