Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

watch

See also Games-related deletions.

Video games-related deletions

Albert Aretz

Albert Aretz (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 can’t see any reliable independent sources on the page or easily on google. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see enough in the article to support a claim of notability, nor could I find anything in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Saimazoom

Saimazoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is mostly a copy and paste from an WP:LLM generated summary of this 1980s game. LLM or not, it fails WP:GNG due to most of the sources being non-notable gaming forums.

In addition, the user who made this has made other articles that are LLM copy-pastes that are not notable. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Suspected AI-generated articles, and United Kingdom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly a notable game, with reviews in Sinclair Programs, Crash, Your Computer, Sinclair User and MicroHobby, all of which are reliable sources. I didn't look closely at the other Spanish magazines but given it's a Spanish game there may well be more. Looking at the history, Vrxces has already removed the LLM-generated text and added some better refs. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, fails NOLLM. The user is almost certainly not being honest about their llm use, see also thr WP:AIN § User:Soldatipro. No comment on notability, so I am also not opposed to a stubification if someone is up for that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am okay with a keep outcome of the stubified version. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and stubify any offending content - the article satisfies WP:GNG per the sources identified above; issues like WP:NOLLM or the misconduct of the article creator can be cured through ways that don't require deletion of the article. I will say the original state of the article was pretty bad even when WP:AGF. VRXCES (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as already cleaned up by Vrxces. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge (video game)

Battle of the Bulge (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)

Fails GNG. Only sigcov is 4Players. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I did not see additional references after a search, if others can do so, I am happy to modify my opinion. It seems that those references would have been added by now given the age of this article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - The Metacritic page already linked on the article lists a good number of in-depth reviews from reliable sources - GameZebo, Eurogamer, Pocket Gamer, TouchArcade, and Slide to Play. Meets GNG. Waxworker (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as above - given ample reliable reviews have been identified. VRXCES (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep, per above _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The Wings Store

The Wings Store (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. Appears notable neither as an online marketplace nor as a gaming / eSports brand; the sources do not contain the requisite significant, independent coverage. The only source with nontrivial coverage, Info Argentum, is blatantly promotional. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Argentina, Venezuela, and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as failing NCORP, and also failing WP:NOLLM. This is basically a lightly-paraphrased copy of the incontrovertibly LLM-generated Wings Store by the same user, that was speedily deleted under G15 (draftified as Draft:Wings Store by the user as a response to the G15). See the similarities in the AbuseLog/44748026 filter log entry.
  For the AI concerns, see also the WP:AIN § User:Soldatipro noticeboard discussion and User talk:Soldatipro § July 2026. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - run of the mill restaurant that is an AI copy paste. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is not a restaurant. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. AI-generated content. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject fails the WP:NCORP guidelines. Brodska213 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ai is suspected by this account. S0091 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sadia Bashir

Sadia Bashir (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. Coverage in reliable sources is limited or just cover her listing in the Forbes 30 under 30 Asia. Forbes 30 under 30 Asia is not an indicator of notability. BookishReader (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Video games, Computing, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I really approve of this BBC article on her from 2018, this Wired article on her from 2022, she's discussed in this Al Jazeera article about women in gaming in Pakistan in 2016, she's mentioned in this one about women in engineering in 2025. IMO, the Al Jazeera, BBC, and Wired comfortably clear notability for her. Jishara (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Al Jazeera article is hardly about her and contains little biographical information. Wired article is better, but it focuses on gaming in Pakistan more generally. IMO, a general article such as video games in Pakistan would be a better option, on that we could include coverage of the academy she founded. BookishReader (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Jishara's sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I think @Jishara has done the hard work for this one. Clearly notable, no grounds for deletion whatsoever. 11WB 💬 23:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: As I've written before, "Forbes is a crust of a shell of a carcass of a formerly reliable source." If kept, the references to Forbes list needs to be removed. "Less is more" is true for this case. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

   Done. 11WB 💬 23:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Cities: Skylines - Snowfall

Cities: Skylines - Snowfall (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 propose merging to Cities: Skylines because topic is not notable as an independent article. See MOS:VGDLC, WP:NGAME, and WP:GNG.

I am also nominating:

Cities: Skylines - After Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason.

Axolitl (talk | contribs) 12:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 12:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: NewAccount7295. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 12:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Axolitl @Vrxces: How is notability not established by all the reviews which make up a reception section of several paragraphs? (Also ) Although I will admit, the first DLC has more sources. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support: I think these downloadable content packs, discussed separately, do not generate enough WP:SIGCOV for standalone articles. A separate article (List of Cities Skylines downloadable content) would make a lot more sense. Something like The Sims 4 expansion packs. OceanHok (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose While I support the creation of an overarching expansion pack article about them, I don't think merging them into the main article will make the main article better, nor result in a net improvement for readers, given their full reception that is more comprehensive than most standalone games. See also: WP:NOTPAPER. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm Are you supporting this be kept, or merged to a list article? I agree with you that I don't think with this or the Planet Zoo articles there is any room to merge the reception sections into the main article. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Keep unless a new combination article is created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Would you prefer that a new combination article be created or that this article be kept? FaviFake (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

They should be merged back even by WP:SIZESPLIT principle. There's not much to merge here given that the article relies entirely on quotes. A summary of reception (a sentence or two) in the DLC table in the Cities: Skylines main page would be sufficient already. While review exists, it is not really an argument for a split. This is just going to be a permastub as a standalone article, because there is no SIGCOV about anything else. It should be merged regardless of whether a list article is created. OceanHok (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@OceanHok There is room for expansion. Reception is pretty much done but the gameplay section can also be expanded. The reviews and articles do also focus on the features. I invited @Cunard to give a source analysis and opinion as well (whichever one they give). NewAccount7295 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with its sources. The problem is that there is simply no strong reason for a sub-article to exist. MOS:VGDLC clearly states that we should avoid unnecessary splits, and that you should at least have a non-stub section for both development/design and reception ready before you push it out to mainspace. Also it is worth mentioning that better WP:SIGCOV exists when post-launch updates are discussed as a whole (see ), so that's why the DLC list article should be prioritized over these independent DLCs. OceanHok (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per ZXCVBNM. On the above discussion, the principles about DLC in WP:VG/N apply and the issue here is that there is no background or gameplay information that the main article would benefit from, and disaggregating reception sections by DLC would not really improve the article. Given the complexity and number of the DLC for Skylines, I am fully supportive of an article like Downloadable content for Cities Skylines, but that may best be first workshopped in draftspace to make sure it satisfies WP:GNG and covers the topic as a whole. There are certainly no shortage of reviews on each DLC iteration, and if there's a little bit of metacommentary about the DLC as a whole - as there seems to be with the PC Gamer article - it's probably a good idea. VRXCES (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose merge to current target, there's a nontrivial amount here that would be unwieldy in the main CS article, but would support a merge to a hypothetical List of Cities Skylines downloadable content. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose merge target. Support creation of standalone article. As strange as it is, this DLC does have multiple reviews that satisfy SIGCOV and THREE. I think @VRXCES' suggestion is the best path forward. I suggest opening an RM after this with such an article title suggestion given. That would have my support. 11WB 💬 22:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. These pages should be merged into a single article on City Skylines DLC, not merged into City Skylines itself. Not only would the proposed merge cause bloat on the main article, it is likely to get split off swiftly into a standalone article anyways. Let's cut out the middle man and just make it a List page 13akoors (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Given the way the wind is blowing, I'll have a crack at Draft:Cities: Skylines downloadable content. There are enough review sources here to expand beyond a list I think. VRXCES (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Imagination Games

Imagination Games (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)

Company appears to fail WP:NCORP. Shane Yeend could be a notable entrepreneur but this article has virtually no content worth saving. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Australia. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete. It is absolutely bizarre to have an article about a game company that doesn't list any of their games. Also all of these links are super dead. Two of them that aren't seem to confer some WP:SIGCOV, American Express and Austrade. There's also this but the Humphrey B. Bear stuff is effectively useless here. I'm assuming the american express one is Departures Australia which seems a little unreliable to me. I could see an argument going the other way but I don't think it's quite enough to put an article together. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The BEXP(?) magazine online cover story says published by Hardie Grant Magazines, so I agree that it is significant. The Austrade Case study is rather brief and does not say when it was published (sometime after the 2004 Australian Export Award was announced?). That one looks rather standard business reporting and not significant. IgelRM (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The article is about Imagination Games, but here are two sources on Imagination Entertainment: smartcompany, afr. IgelRM (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete per @Whipmywillows. The fact that the article doesn't list any of the company's games combined with the fact that all links are dead makes me think that it should be a situation of TNT where the article can be recreated if notable. Khalitate (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Planet Zoo: South America Pack

Planet Zoo: South America Pack (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 propose merging to Planet Zoo: fails WP:GNG and MOS:VGDLC. Seems to be an unnecessary split considering sections are just paragraphs long - could be incorporated into a section of Planet Zoo.

EDIT: I am also nominating the following article:

Planet Zoo: Arctic Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Everybody who has commented so far also supports merging this article.

Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC) (edited at 05:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC))

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment Not sure that there is room to merge it since there are over twenty DLCs, especially speaking of reception content. We could create a Planet Zoo expansion packs article but we'd want it to be well-written. Do you think it is notable? NewAccount7295 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Considering there are ~20, a list could be possible. I see you also made a Planet Zoo: Arctic Pack article, which could also be merged there (I believe it has the same issues as this article). Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support and merge Planet Zoo: Arctic Pack as well. There is not much to merge here because these expansionS only add a few animals and scenery items. There is no WP:SIGCOV here. Also I don't think a separate page is a good idea because listing their content (list of animals) falls under WP:GAMECRUFT. OceanHok (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I support merging Planet Zoo: Arctic Pack (I don't know how to add it to the listing though), and you bring up a good point. I'd say they maybe could be expanded in the article, with a sentence or two per DLC, but a table could still be fine. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Support merge for both Arctic and South America pages Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge both to Planet Zoo. Neither pack has WP:SIGCOV of its own, and with more than twenty DLCs a summary section or table at the parent article is the right treatment per MOS:VGDLC; a full content listing would be WP:GAMECRUFT. Onatic (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge, the whole point of DLC's is to add little bits to a preexisting game. It is only very, very rare that they need individual articles; we're not here to collect as many articles as possible, but to summarise subjects for readers, so it's much better to give an overview of closely-related topics in a single place rather than generate vast numbers of boiler-plate mini-articles. Also there's nothing much to say about individual planet zoo DLC's beyond list a few animals and state the theme - anything more becomes fancruft. If the planet zoo article gets too long, by all means spin out a single list article handling all DLCs in one place. Elemimele (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge – Per above. FaviFake (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support and merge. My views are that there can be plenty of occasions where a standalone expansion pack article is fine, particularly in the 90s and 00s when they substantially altered a game, but the nature of the additions and depth of coverage needs to meet a higher standard as WP:MERGEREASON would ordinarily apply. Definitely not in the case where a pack adds cosmetic items and animals and not much in terms of gameplay. VRXCES (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose While I support the creation of an overarching expansion pack article about them, I don't think merging them into the main article will make the main article better, nor result in a net improvement for readers, given their full reception that is more comprehensive than most standalone games. See also: WP:NOTPAPER. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Oh man there's so many. Maybe like in this discussion, it may be a better outcome for all to consider a Downloadable content for Planet Zoo or List of... article if cross-coverage exists. I might strike out my above vote to reflect a preference to oppose. VRXCES (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Strongest possible oppose to whatever standalone/overarching article proposed here, as this is not the solution. Whereas Cities Skylines DLC actually introduced new mechanics, each pack here on Planet Zoo only include several new animals, scenery items, and maybe one or two scenarios. There is no way you can create a proper article for these without venturing into WP:GAMECRUFT territory. OceanHok (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  If that's the case, that would make a standalone article inappropriate, but I stand by a list being appropriate if WP:NLIST is satisfied. VRXCES (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as stated. Similar to the City Skylines DLC merge request, these should be put into a single DLC page, rather than cluttering up the Planet Zoo page. 13akoors (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Niantic Spatial

Niantic Spatial (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 propose redirecting to Pokémon Go because coverage of Niantic Spatial is not independent of that company, and because most coverage of Niantic Spatial only talks about them insofar as they relate to Pokémon Go. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Companies, and Technology. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

oppose- this is a perfectly fine content fork. They also don't develop Pokemon Go anymore, and I think it's reasonable to assume that merging them to Pokemon Go would become messier and messier as they develop independently of it. Yojo98 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NCORP failure since April, so this being a separate article may not be valid. I'm not as convinced Pokémon Go is the right target, though, given that Niantic Spatial is result of the sale of much of Niantic, Inc., to Scopely, and the immediate spinoff of the non-games portion–which means the connection between Pokémon Go (which stayed with Scopely) and Niantic Spatial is tangential at best, coverage notwithstanding. Perhaps a merge back to Niantic, Inc. would be logical or due (certainly moreso than Pokémon Go in this case), but I'm not giving a formal opinion on that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  thank you for the context, WC! I think a merge and redirect to Niantic, Inc could be appropriate, although it could get a little confusing with tense and clarity. I would defer to how other such spinoff merges has been conducted in the past, and continue to oppose merging to Pokemon Go Yojo98 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I oppose. If it redirects to any game it should be the one they actively develop, Ingress.

Niantic Spatial is its own company separate from Scopely and Pokemon Go. CollinstheClown (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Pokémon Go is not related to Niantic Spatial. Niantic has essentially been absorbed into Scopely since last year. nianticlabs.com redirects to Scopely. Niantic Spatial is a spinoff from the Scopely purchase in which Niantic's IP and other services were kept. My issue with the Niantic Spatial article has been it's not notable to be a separate article in its current form. – The Grid (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Pointy ears

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Pointy ears
• Articles for deletion/Pointy ears (2nd nomination)

Pointy ears (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 am renominating the article, as, even after major changes and numerous added sources, it remains a textbook example of a WP:COATRACK article that groups several totally unrelated topics by the shared trait of pointy ears. Pointy ears in animals, congenital ear malformations of humans, and pointy-eared fantasy races and their associated plastic surgery trends have only a surface-level relation to each other.

The fantasy trope of elf ears can be discussed in the article on elves without requiring a separate page. While other mythological creatures possess pointy ears, there doesn't seem to be much of import about it besides the fact that they are listed as having them.

Pathologies that give humans pointed ears does not appear to be a notable topic in and of itself beyond the articles for each individual pathology. And animals that happen to have pointed ears is purely a curiosity and piece of trivia. These alternate topics are coatracked onto the article to make it appear more authoritative.

Ultimately, what we have is an article on elf ears, which can easily be discussed in Elves in fiction, with a bunch of other unrelated pointy eared things to make it seem more worthy of being a standalone page. The changes did not rectify that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film, Video games, Animal, and Medicine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Please note that this speedy renomination wasn't Zxcvbnm's first choice, but mine, as a result of the AfD I closed earlier today, and after a discussion with other admins. Owen× ☎ 17:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. We'd need a large third party source to tie this topic together and meet WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. Otherwise it's just a collection of observations that editors that have WP:SYNTHesized from WP:OR, to create a director of indiscriminate information -- something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep so as not to go from zero to delete for a page involving topics like Mr. Spock from Star Trek and many other alien and fantasy forms which, counter to the nomination, are not elves. All the WP:'s in the world can be laid out to argue one side or the other, but on this one the title alone brings forth memories and memes that everyone is familiar with so, including them in one article, meets WP:COMMONSENSE. If topic criteria needs to be worked on, then do that. Delete is the weak approach. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not TVTropes, so we are not required to list every trope that popularly appears in media no matter how popular it is. I am also a fan of various pieces of media that do in fact contain pointy-eared characters, but is there a link between them besides a character designer saying "this looks cool"? There's nothing to put in a page besides example-cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete There are round ears and pointy ears. Some fictional things have pointy ears, as do some non fictional things. But there is no subject here. This is entirely synthesised from sources, so we have a source about pointy eared cats and a source about pointy eared dogs, and an article asking if Tolkien elves have pointy ears, and one about Vulcans. Nothing here, however, speaks about pointy ears as a concept worthy of analysis. If no-one else has synthesised sources, neither should we. Neither, I might add, do we have any articles about insy and outsy belly buttons. The keep vote saying that the article covers Spock and fantasy elves misses the point that we have actual articles about these things in a place where people will find them, and it seems very unlikely that anyone interested in Vulcans wishes to read, also, about cats, or pigs, or my classmate from school, whose ears were ridiculously pointy. WP:COATRACKing and WP:SYNTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is not a coatrack article. It's a broad-concept article (BCA). WP:COATRACK is merely an opinion Wikipedia essay, as noted by the banner at the top of its page. By contrast, WP:BROAD is an actual editing guideline. The official editing policy of Wikipedia states that editors should "Preserve appropriate content", rather than deleting content (WP:PRESERVE). If the nominator and the deletionists with dislike the article, then they should try to improve the BCA, rather than deleting it. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  • A WP:Broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. That's not what we have here. Just like what we have here isn't a WP:Set index article, which somebody suggested it was in the previous AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

    No, you're mistaken. I stand by what I said. The article does in fact discuss a range of related concepts that are each instantiations of a more abstract concept. It is imperative that we follow the official editing policy and preserve this article by editing it accordingly. Policies and guidelines matter. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

    Nonsense. As I said below, consider the "expert" test outlined at WP:Broad-concept article: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [name of page], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in a typical university)? The answer here is pretty obviously "no": somebody who is a "pointy ears" expert would need to be an expert in fiction/mythology, human congenital deformities, and the normal anatomy of various animals. The different topics here, rather than being a range of related concepts that are each instantiations of a more abstract concept, have superficial similarities—as would basically any adjective–noun combination like this that you could come up with. If this were actually a single, broad topic, you would be able to show this through sources that treat it as such and not just rely on the bare assertion that it is so. TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

    It's not nonsense at all. You're just misinterpreting the editing guideline page. You're also making an isolated demand for rigor. Once again, WP:COATRACK is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it has absolutely no bearing on whether the article should be kept or not. The justification for deletion given in the nomination is bogus because it's not based on actual policies.

    The main question at stake is whether pointy ears is a WP:NOTABLE topic. It clearly is, the information in the article is well-cited, and it's a WP:BROAD concept article. The article must therefore be kept because the topic is notable. End of discussion. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

    You're also wrong that pointy ears fails the expert test. An expert in morphological biology could easily be a pointy ears expert. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

    I have no idea why you are arguing with me about WP:COATRACK. What I'm saying is that you are wrong about this being a WP:Broad-concept article. You appear to be working backwards from the assumption that this is a single coherent topic, despite sources not treating it as such. An expert in morphological biology would not be an expert on the trope—those are different disciplines. Going by the sources, this is a WP:Synthesis of different topics under a single heading (in Wikiparlance, a WP:CHIMERA). It's not much better than making an article about a collocation. You are basically making a motte-and-bailey argument that some interpretation of "pointy ears" is a valid topic for a Wikipedia article (on the basis of WP:Notability, it seems), therefore this one is. If you want to demonstrate that your conception of this topic is suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, present sources that treat it as a single, broad topic.

    It is also categorically not the case that WP:NOTABLE topics must be kept—that's a major misunderstanding of our WP:Deletion policy which has no fewer than fourteen canonical WP:Reasons for deletion, an explicitly non-exhaustive list of which failing notability is just one (others include violations of WP:NOT and WP:BLP), and misses that there are WP:Alternatives to deletion such as WP:NOPAGE solutions where material is covered elsewhere. Of course, that happens to be what the nomination suggested. TompaDompa (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. First, renominating instantly after closing of the previous AfD is I believe not a best practice, XfD should be carried out if there was a problem with the previous nom. Second, in few days I expect my article about this topic will be published in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, so the issue of lack of sourcing will be solved (if it is an issue at all - I believe sourcing is good enough already). PS. As I said last time, the human and fiction topics are connected, as show in the sources (with human condition named after fiction), so they are not unrelated. Animal section is less defensible and, again, I'll say I don't mind if it is removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  It was not my decision to make, please read the admin's note above. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Piotrus and 11WB: as I mentioned above, Zxcvbnm was against renominating, opting instead for the original AfD to be reopened and relisted. It was my choice, not his, to keep the previous AfD closed and renominate instead. Two fellow admins agreed with this decision. Don't blame Zxcvbnm for this, and it shouldn't affect your assessment of the article itself. To be clear: this nomination does not qualify for a speedy close. The speedy renomination was specifically endorsed in my original close. Owen× ☎ 18:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  What impact does it being published have on this AfD? – The Grid (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree with @Piotrus. The decision to open a new AfD, instead of reopening the previous one (which I would argue should have closed as keep), was not a fair decision (see WP:2MONTHS). Regardless, this topic has sufficient sourcing for an article, and in my view acts as the primary page. If the nominator disagrees with the names of other articles (such as "elf ears"), that's an WP:RM discussion. 11WB 💬 13:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please read the admin's note above re: why it was opened as a new AfD... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I did read it all before !voting. I accidentally made a straw man argument by bringing up RM. I misread your nomination statement and thought you had an issue with the article title ("elf ears" > "elves in fiction"). I'm going to strike that part of my !vote. 11WB 💬 19:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete This is a pure Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS and Wikipedia:COATRACK failure. Why are these topics, regarding tropes in fiction, presence in nature, body modifications, etc, all covered together? These are all fundamentally different topics, and none of them are united by sourcing. At a glance the sourcing is just sourcing particular examples and has little in the way of discussing why these various topics should be discussed together. This information is neither helpful nor informative and is just making connections where none exist. Sirfurboy above basically sums up my thoughts on this, and the arguments for keeping seem to be ignoring these policies in favor of preserving content that does not benefit a reader at all. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:Coatrack is an essay, so on that one the article can't "fail" anything except for the editorial comments made in essays. As has been mentioned here, a baby-bathwater solution is not what this or other pages need, but a little, not excessive, editorial work. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You can perhaps then address the central point: Why are these topics, regarding tropes in fiction, presence in nature, body modifications, etc, all covered together? These are all fundamentally different topics, and none of them are united by sourcing. How to cover them separately has already been mentioned above. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

These are related topics. Pointed ears are a civilizational and cultural meme, the title is itself self-recognizable and understood even without reading the page. It is an encyclopedic topic per its wide-ranging overlap, not despite it. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That more-or-less amounts to "I don't care about sources—it looks good to me." TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It has plenty of sources, over 60, all related, in one way or another, with pointed ears and their place in nature, in legend, in culture, etc. Please look at the nomination, which presents the main reason for deletion as WP:COATRACK, pointed to as if it's a policy or guideline. It's an editorial. An essay. Some editors agree with it and others can disagree but either way it still has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. This page covers several topics, all related to how nature and human culture have interestingly included pointed ears among their benchmarks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with @RK on this. COATRACK is a weak point, as it's neither a policy nor guideline. It also doesn't apply. This is a primary topic article, and as has been said already, has sufficient sourcing to warrant an article. 11WB 💬 05:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The policy is WP:SYNTHESIS, a core aspect of our "no original research" polciy. What sources cover this as a collection? If none, then we are synthesising sources to make a topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it says something that when the first comment in this thread brought up WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:COATRACK, the retorts have focused entirely on the latter. A tacit acknowledgment that they can come up with no good counter to the former point, perhaps. TompaDompa (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

What claim or claims (please provide direct quotes) in the article are not supported by reliable sources? Katzrockso (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you know that the point being made here is about the scope of the article being a synthesis of what is, per the sources, disparate topics rather than a single overarching one. A WP:CHIMERA, in Wikiparlance. A suggestion has been made below about how to address this: remove the "In animals" section, cover the trope (corresponding to the "In folklore and fiction" section and "Props and plastic surgery" subsection) here at pointy ears, and create an ear deformities article to cover the human pathologies (corresponding to the "Pathologies" subsection).

Nevertheless, I'll give you an example of a specific unsupported claim: This anatomical trait has been a characteristic feature of various imaginary creatures and has become a cliché in popular culture, particularly in the fantasy and science fiction genres. You can perhaps return the favour by presenting a source that treats this as a single coherent topic? TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As was repeated several times (sigh), RS from the field of medicine repeatedly mention cultural aspects of this (mythology/SF), so those two aspects of the article are clearly connected. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The medical examples in the article all appear to be a stretch in and of themselves. The photo in Darwin's tubercle does not show a pointy ear. It seems like someone looked for any medical condition in which a very tiny chance someone might have somewhat pointed ears existed and slapped them in the article without considering whether it was typical for that condition or even if the pointiness was noticeable to the average person, simply to have some grist to justify the article. This shouldn't be how articles are written and is irresponsible to readers who go to them expecting them not to be sensationalist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This article was authored twelve years ago, and has had a DYK, plus a HEYMAN. The nomination statement posits this as a merge proposal ("The fantasy trope of elf ears can be discussed in the article on elves without requiring a separate page."), but is actually for deletion. The sections in the article are split, meaning SYNTH does not apply in any way. Piotrus has already presented sources on the topic (SFE), so that makes the case for an article. An AfD claiming COATRACK and SYNTH without explicit evidence of this, is just an assertion, and not a strong one. 11WB 💬 11:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not the case that Piotrus has already presented sources on the topic (SFE). What Piotrus said about SFE was in few days I expect my article about this topic will be published in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. I looked at https://sf-encyclopedia.com/whatsnew.php, and it has not yet been WP:PUBLISHED as of my writing this (and we typically require multiple independent sources to cover any given topic anyway). TompaDompa (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

We have multiple good sources already; I'll certainly update you here when my article is published in SFE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the cited sources that purportedly show that the topics are connected, I would also say that they show just that: the topics are connected. But that can also be said for, say, a bridge and the river it crosses. Or two people who have collaborated professionally. Or any two things that are somewhat similar and recurringly compared to each other, really—which is what I see in the sources here. I don't see pointy ears treated as a singular topic. TompaDompa (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Reactor, SR, D+E, Futura. I'm sure there are many, many others. The claim that there are no sources is absurd. 11WB 💬 11:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

So the first is an article about the portrayal of aliens in SF. The second is an article about depiction of Tolkien elves with pointy ears despite Tolkien never describing them thus, the third is worth considering separately, the fourth says "From the pointy ears of the Vulcans to the razor-sharp teeth of the Xenomorph, humanity has never stopped imagining what aliens might look like." which is trivial. Note that three of those sources, therefore, do not speak to a subject of pointy ears. Two are on the subject of portrayal of aliens and one is on portrayal of Tolkien elves. To conjoin those to find a subject is classic WP:SYNTHESIS and we cannot do that.

So what about the Design Encyclopaedia then? That contains a very brief article, by Andrew Campbell, that discusses long pointy ears, as emphasising the supernatural of animalistic nature of things. That is an analysis, and inasmuch as it refers to sources, a synthesis, so it is the right kind of thing. But there are a couple of problems which show why this alone is certainly not sufficient to argue for notability of a page. These are:

1. That article does not speak to this page subject, which states "Pointy ears or pointed ears (also satyr, plxle, goblin, elf(in), or gnome ear) are a characteristic of various animals in nature. In humans, they generally are the result of a genetic condition." The article is saying that pointed ears are a trope used in fictional depictions to show supernatural or animalistic nature. The article would need to be rewritten to follow the source, and the article as we have it is certainly a synthesis. We would need no discussion of actual animals with pointy ears in any page about the trope.
2. The article is published in an encyclopaedia, which is normally a tertiary source, not a secondary one. On what is Campbell basing his analysis? What are his qualifictions for doing so? Indeed, theDesign Encyclopaedia is collaboratively written, like Wikipedia, although more granular. Andrew Campbell, who gives us no information about himself in his profile, simply had to sign up to contribute that piece. It is thus a WP:SPS and cannot be used for notability.

Thus we currently still have no sources that speak to the page subject as a thing in itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is WP:BROAD: 'In writing articles on these subjects, it is useful to directly address the scope of the term, and the history of how the concept has developed. Each of the examples of the concept or type of thing should be included at some point in the article, possibly in a list, so that no information is lost from what would have been presented in the disambiguation page format.'

This is what has been done in this article. The sources I provided, despite your dismissal of them, are permitted for use in an article of this type. I'm going to leave this here to prevent bludgeoning. 11WB 💬 12:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not a WP:Broad-concept article. Consider the "expert" test outlined there: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [name of page], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in a typical university)? The answer here is pretty obviously "no": somebody who is a "pointy ears" expert would need to be an expert in fiction/mythology, human congenital deformities, and the normal anatomy of various animals. TompaDompa (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's one of the approach questions. Just because it fails one, doesn't mean it fails the others. Anyway, I don't think either side is getting anywhere in this discussion and it's already become unproductive. I'm going to bow out. Feel free to keep replying, but this will be my final reply on this AfD. Thanks. 11WB 💬 12:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As 11WB already wrote, that's just one test out of multiple possible tests.

You're also wrong that pointy ears fails the expert test. An expert in morphological biology could easily be a pointy ears expert. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Not as the topic is treated here, which is the point. An expert in morphological biology would not be an expert on the trope, now would they? The "expert" test is also the only test outlined at WP:Broad-concept article, and it's not like anybody has suggested any other test that would be more suitable here. And of course, where are the sources that treat this as a single topic? TompaDompa (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

And if it is not a single topic, that's not an issue per AFDNOTCLEANUP, if folks desire to split this into two or three articles, so be it. The medical and fiction topics may well warrant stand-alone articles (pointy ears in popular culture, pointy ears (medical condition), based on the sourcing; I am less convinced the animal section has much merit. But then votes should be not keep/delete but split/not-split, this entire discussion is malformed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The nomination addressed this directly: The fantasy trope of elf ears can be discussed in the article on elves without requiring a separate page. While other mythological creatures possess pointy ears, there doesn't seem to be much of import about it besides the fact that they are listed as having them. [...] Pathologies that give humans pointed ears does not appear to be a notable topic in and of itself beyond the articles for each individual pathology. And animals that happen to have pointed ears is purely a curiosity and piece of trivia. TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As stated, if split, each individual page would be non-notable, so it would not accomplish much compared to just deleting it outright. I guess I don't have much prejudice towards moving the page to elf ears and making pointy ears a redlink for vagueness, then redirecting it to elves in fiction. I still doubt it could be notable in the near future, but it would preserve the history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

At most I'd support a redirect as well, but I'm not sure since "pointy ears" is very vague as a redirection topic and has multiple contexts. Should that mean this page be kept as is? No. But its contents should be redistributed where applicable where it does not run afoul of policy at the very least, as you said. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

We have numerous RS that are about this topic, mentioning pointy or elf ears in the very name of the article, and discussing it in depth. Academic sources cover human aspects (both the birth defects and the plastic surgery), and media coverage covers plastic surgery and popular culture, with, as noted time and again, obvious overlap (since the naming of the medical terminology is inspired by, as plainly acknowledged in the academic articles, by the popular culture term). If this was split, which I don't think is necessary given how short the subsections is, there is plenty of SIGCOV sources supporting notability for the medical and plastic ear topics. The SIGCOV for the popculture is more debatable (until my SFE article is live, hopefully soon); as while we have SIGCOV articles about specific pointy ears (such as the Smithsonian article on Spock's) there is no broad overview. So if you really wanted to see this rewritten, I think this could take the form of the article about the medical condition, with the (arguably longer...) section on popculture (including the cosmetic surgery). Not sure what to do with the animal trivia, but frankly I never cared about it so, shrug that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if COATRACK is not a policy (Though I do still think it applies here), what about SYNTH? As has been stated above, this is taking sources together about a variety of different topics and putting them together under one banner when hardly any actual third party sources do themselves. There is no "improvement" to be had with that kind of article since no matter how many sources about distinct kinds of ears are brought up, if none cover the topic broadly across multiple mediums, then SYNTH is still failed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this is covered by sources like https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9999-5_10 - a medical article that clearly attributes the naming of this birth defect to mythology/popculture, and even goes on to list several alternate names related to different mythological/fantastical races. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I think the Pointy ears#Props and plastic surgery section should be reformatted as a separate subsection of In folklore and fiction. This isn't pointy ears in humans as a standalone phenomenon, it's people emulating elves and fictional use. The article should focus on the trope and people's reaction to it, less on the pathologies that are less relevant and look different. Reywas92^Talk
  • I agree it is related to this; it concerns human biology too but it should not be mixed with the birth defect, to which it is unrelated except of the popculture/mythology derived naming. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per above. If we had sources about the subject of pointy ears which encompass the things in this article, that would be fine. But it seems we have sources about the things in this article that mention that they have pointy ears. There's no source asserting "Pointy ears" as a phenomenon or subject to be discussed with a scope equivalent to what we're covering. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but refocus. There should be an article on pointy ears as a fantasy trope, and it can include people wearing ears as props or having surgery to get elf ears. That's a coherent, notable topic. The animal section seems like crow-barred in filler material, using bare mentions of various animals having pointed ears. An article on Stahl's ear and perhaps a general one on Ear deformities is missing. A hatnote from the trope article can point to the new one on Stahl's. Fences&Windows 16:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Quick reply. Stahl's ear is mentioned at Otoplasty#Prominent ears and ear deformities have several including protruding ear, microtia, cauliflower ear and Treacher Collins syndrome. A general article for those would be feasible under WP:BROAD. 11WB 💬 18:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  • An article on pointy ears as a fantasy trope and a separate article on ear deformities seems like a fairly reasonable approach to me, though a quick look at a sample of the sources currently cited in the "In folklore and fiction" section indicates that the sourcing on pointy ears as an overarching trope (rather than sources covering individual instances of it) is fairly weak—which should be a non-issue if and when the SFE article is published. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep and improve. I see suggestions that this article can be reshaped to obviate whatever issues editors might bring up with SYNTH (a charge I don't find convincing in and of itself given the sourcing already extant in the article). I think the pointy ears as a fantasy trope article that TompaDompa suggests above could house most of the material in this article, which is the best way forward. Katzrockso (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the article with its focus on the fantasy and fiction element and the cosmetic element as a subsection, and selective merge out the content relating to ear morphology in medicine and biology. The reliable coverage is aligned with a primary topic which is cultural. There isn't enough here to try and converge all interrelated topics and inference is still needed to shoehorn them in, so it's best to remove these. VRXCES (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  This falls under WP:SOURCESEXIST as you have only speculated that pointy ears in fantasy MUST have a source somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:SOURCESEXIST is when editors gesture to the status of potential notability by assuming hypothetical sourcing that is not present. I can see that the phrase the coverage is aligned with a primary topic sounds a little like that; I'm referring to the fact that the bulk of the sourcing provided aligns with the cultural dimension of the topic and that's how a kept article should be framed. I think this is a fair angle given WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH are the issues being discussed. It's a valid critique that I didn't provide an analysis as to whether the sourcing meets WP:GNG, but that's not quite the same as me saying WP:SOURCESEXIST. VRXCES (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I support Vrxces concept of focusing the article on the humanoid/fantastical use of pointy ears. I'm not seeing any indication in the sources I checked that animal pointy ears are particularly related to humanoid pointy ears, and if such a relationship does exist, the cultural meaning of pointy ears in fantasy and fashion still appears to be the primary focus of the article. It's a bit of a grab-bag, but pointy ear props being called "elf ears" by sources indicates it is part of a single broader subject. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect and split to various articles per Fences. Breaking up this article into more niche article seems like the right way to go for this overly broad article. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 06:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Where would you redirect it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or maybe split into an article on biology and an article on culture. Many reasons have been given, and it's very well researched. Even if it violates an essay, it doesn't have to be deleted.

LightningThrower (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Please expound on what part of pointy ears of animals is independently notable. That would still fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE or perhaps WP:ITSTRUE. Similarly, its usage in folklore, myth and fiction don't appear to be related. Trying to relate them would be WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think 'pointy ears in biology/animal life" would meet notability, but pointy ears in culture does seem to, hence the refocus suggestion above. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we have a near consensus to blank the section on animal ears and arguably split the articles into the medical and culture ones. Pointy ears in popular culture will do for the latter; I am a bit unclear what to do, name-wise, with the medical side of things (cosmetic surgery might warrant its own subarticle that is mention from the two others, perhaps?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the cosmetic surgery can be merged into Otoplasty, and linked to from the general "Pointy ears"/"Pointy ears in culture" article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the trope/fantasy/SF/deliberate modifications material for a focused article. Delete the animals. Move the human congenital abnormalities to a medical article. In biomedicine I've encountered patient communities that objected strongly to mixing medical issues with pop-culture tropes: the one I remember best was parent distress at being told that their children were desperately ill due to malfunction of the "sonic hedgehog" gene. I don't think we need to keep them together, and if we don't need to, it's kinder not to. M kuhner (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but refocus on the fictional / fantasy / sci-fi sense. Real-life examples in animals should only be mentioned with direct sources on their relevance to the fictional topic. (Also I don't see any procedural problem with this AFD for the record.) SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep only the trope aspect at this title, remove the animals entirely, and move the content about ear deformities to a new ear deformities article. The sourcing on the trope as an overarching topic is as I said above fairly weak, and the SFE article appears not to have been published yet (or maybe it won't be), but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now—with the understanding that this might need to be revisited at a later point in time. I strongly oppose retaining the current scope, since it conflates what is per the sources disparate topics and as such constitutes a WP:CHIMERA. TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  @TompaDompa For the record, the last I heard from the SFE editors on this was that the review of the article was delayed due to their personal issues - that was ~2 weeks ago. They haven't replied to my query about it status that I sent them a week ago (in the meantime, they did publish other articles I've sent them since; the only time they declined another of my submissions they've clearly told me that it was rejected, so I am not sure what's going on; usually they publish what I sent them with no hassle - over 70 entries now, I think... ). Sigh. Anyway, for now, yes, my promised article is in limbo and cannot be used as a source or to determine notability of this concept :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've mostly tapped out of this AfD, as consensus seems to be in favour of keeping with the condition of consistent topic focus. Does WP:SELFCITE permit citing your own work. I've seen you mention using your own SFE publishings as sources before, which could run afoul of WP:CITESPAM, even across articles (if done purely to elevate topics to notability). As an established editor, I wouldn't accuse you of, in essence, gaming WP:N to do that. I imagine newer editors might (game) though, if they are a writer for a website considered reliable on Wikipedia. That would be a COI/UPE issue. 11WB 💬 15:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Emily Pitcher

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Emily Pitcher
• Articles for deletion/Emily Pitcher (2nd nomination)

Emily Pitcher (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)

Per consensus at December AFD. Note also that the article was declined for AFC by User:SpragueThomson in December and User:MurielMary in January. It also appears that major contributor User:Wikiman2230 may have a WP:COI. No real evidence of WP:GNG here. 162 etc. (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

its not WP:COI brother. I already explained it Wikiman (Talk) 15:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there another discussion about this somewhere which might be relevant to this AfD? pburka (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I DMed her and informed her about the article. She said that the site was her old one, so I took it down per her request Wikiman (Talk) 22:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Medium is not a reliable source, and I'm sure The Game Awards website will probably have something that backs up the award. Per WP:NACTOR, a voice actor would be considered notable if they've had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions or if they have unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, and I don't see evidence of either of those conditions being met. I do not think A Taste of the Past is notable either (in a nutshell, I judge notability by the reception section, and there is none for that article) so it would likely not count toward GNG. Sadly I will have to vote delete here per the above, but may be open to changing my mind iff these issues are addressed. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I'd say NACTOR isn't in play here, it's WP:ARTIST, which only requires one significant, well-known work with multiple reviews - and she does in fact have that one in Taste of the Past (reviews by NookGaming, IndieHive, and HeyPoorPlayer. Jishara (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with the WP:COI. I think her coverage does not fit WP:AUTHOR, though. She did not create any well known body of work. So, I will vote a weak delete. Entychologist (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - She is notable through various independent sources (eg. NPR, IGN, Game Developer, etc). I'm not really supposed to say my thoughts on deletion nominations but i figured i would point this out. Wikiman (Talk) 19:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Nom and Gommeh: Does not pass GNG and fails CREATIVE. This is a pseudo biographical article at best. Primary sources such as interviews and passing mention, do not advance notability. Lacks "substantial coverage under the subjects own name". See "Comments" below. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• • Delete per nom and Gommeh. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete The keep nominations ignore a few things: first, that the notability of A Taste of the Past is being disputed and its status as "one significant, well-known work with multiple reviews" is not strongly evidenced by coverage in unreliable indie games pages such as Hey Poor Player. Also, substantial elements of the coverage cited consist of interview coverage about Pitcher in her own words: for instance, the Entrepreneur "as-told-to essay" and the Game Developer and 80 Level coverage restating the content of a video interview. These are mostly primary sources. There is some sound coverage, such as the Business Insider and Daily Bruin profiles, albeit the latter is a student newspaper entry about her as a student. But as a whole the coverage doesn't really provide a picture of the key elements of Pitcher's career at a level that addresses the main elements of the topic; the Business Insider is very helpful but mostly about her brand strategy, for instance. Given the higher bar for WP:BLP, this sadly doesn't seem to make it past the line without clearly knockout in-depth reliable sources. VRXCES (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments

I first went to the article, after seeing the AFD. What luck, the first random source I looked at (currently #3, "gamehers") was a 404 "page not found". The second, lilys-world-xd-official-reveal-trailer, did not advance notability, and the third, "GDC Festival of Gaming", returned "Page Not Found". I had to start from the beginning and look at every source, looking for a solid two or three that advanced notability. That number is more that the straw grasping "one" source (A Taste of the Past) with multiple reviews" listed above in a "keep" !vote. Both GNG and SNG indicate needing significant indepth coverage in reliable and independent sources. There is absolutely nothing in the Wikipedia:policies and guidelines that hints that one source can seal the deal on notability. Fails being widely publicized on the individual, not just connected to, or primarily about a company the subject founded.

The subject is a content creator that is working to create games. The more the exposure the better the likelihood of creating a possible internet phenomena, that as of yet, has not occurred. Wikipedia is not a vehicle intended as a stepping stone to advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

VTOL VR

VTOL VR (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)

Poor quality and largely unreliable sourcing. Insufficient amount of significant and reliable coverage to be notable. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Maryland. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. As the articles creator, I believe it should remain an article because its one of the most significant flight sims, and the most significant mil. flight sim other than DCS. So there obviously should be info on it here and it shouldn't just be a red link. On sourcing, having compared my article to others (especially in the flight sim genre) it is sourced BETTER than others such as SimplePlanes or something like Falcon 4.0: Allied Force because those use older/unreliable sources or are using primary sources (such as Steam pages), whereas this article uses secondary sources that are considered reliable (for example I have definitely seen roadtovr.com used in other articles e.g. Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown). Although I'm new to Wikipedia, it seems like your distinction of what is 'reliable' seems opinionated and not based on fact. If you have issues with the quality of the article then you can improve it, instead of just being lazy and deleting it. Thanks.

PrimevalTea (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@PrimevalTea Could not find any mainstream coverage of the game outside of the niche of roadtovr.com and similar sites. Falcon 4.0. at least has a reliable print source, while AC7 has significant coverage as a major AAA game. Remember, it's not your problem that a game has minimal coverage, it's the game's own fault. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Go D. Usopp You have a fair point. I reread WP:NOTABILITY and understand more now.. The 'reliable' aspect still seems debatable, especially around game reviews considering that reviews are opinion-based things so reliability on a per-site basis seems silly (I've seen some really insane takes even on 'reliable websites' such as metacritic). PrimevalTea (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@PrimevalTea Metacritic is sourced only for the game's score. Reviews are important not because of the point of view, but because it means that the game is well known enough to be covered. There are standards to determine which websites should be reviewed, because practically anyone can make a website and type the most basic ass review if there were no limitations. Blogs, YouTube videos and Fandom don't count for this reason. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Go D. Usopp Thanks for explaining this. PrimevalTea (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 00:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Of the sources presented in the article, VR today magazine is the only one with an editorial team. I'm having trouble finding other coverage. It's an unfortunate Delete from me. SenshiSun (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete unfortunately. The sourcing available for the article is not sufficient here to prove notability. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Startling Odyssey (via WP:PROD) – Kodning 🌸 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirects

Affect (video game company)

[edit discussion]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus