Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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:

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

Nigma Galaxy

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

I propose merging to Galaxy Racer because the pages cover the same history post-2021. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Organizations, and United Arab Emirates. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Amenti (video game)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable (WP:GNG), mostly self-promo (WP:PROMO), article is entirely AI-generated (WP:NEWLLM) TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment Neutral since I don't really edit video games, but PC Gamer is a strong source. Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete. PC Gamer is a strong source but it is exactly one strong source. The rest of the sources feature such highlights as a high school newspaper, a porn site, and a bunch of pages that don't exist. Even if it can squeak by on coverage, the WP:LLM usage means it would need to be WP:TNTed anyway. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

On further review, this seems to qualify for WP:G15 speedy deletion. [5] and [10] seem to be nonsense refs that were dead on arrival. Click through at your own risk. Whipmywillows (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: this has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since May 2025, and a potential LLM-generated article since June 2025. (No opinion, but it might show how our patience with LLM-generated content–which was very thin as it was–has only further evaporated in the past year–I'm not sure it would take even that long for such an article to come to AfD anymore.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment Is stubifying to address LLM concerns an option? There's a PC Gamer and Adventure Game Hotspot review (). I'd honestly prefer a little more coverage to vote keep, but these do appear two be two strong, in-depth sources from RS, and putting it out there that there's always alternatives. VRXCES (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd prefer if the article history was deleted first. It should be at least a little bit more difficult for the article to just get recreated, especially cause as far as I can tell there really isn't any non-AI text worth salvaging. That text really just shouldn't be on the website at all, otherwise I don't really know what the point of that policy is. For this one, I say delete and if it turns out there are a few more reviews out there and enough interest, someone can try again. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Jamie Paige

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

Although Paige may arguably barely scrape by as notable under WP:GNG, after combing through the sources used here, I'm not confident she meets WP:MUSICBIO.

There are 11 non-primary sources; the only three that I think may count towards meeting MUSICBIO are AudioPhix, Merry-Go-Round Magazine, and possibly this Bandcamp editorial. The reliability of each of these is not clear.
- Given that Paige publishes most of her music on Bandcamp, I'd say the third especially is a questionable source, and it also feels like it might fail the criterion that states publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves and advertising does not qualify. Is this advertising? It's certainly walking a very thin line in that regard. Even if it is reliable, Paige isn't the main topic of the article, so I'm not sure it counts as significant coverage.
Another source, The Sentinel Sound, identifies itself as a high school student newspaper. This also discounts it as per MUSICBIO, which exempts Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases from counting towards notability.
Another source is a radio interview with Paige, uploaded to the interviewer's YouTube channel. This being an interview with Paige, it wouldn't count towards notability for the same reason as the Bandcamp article. It is also stated that this interview aired on WNYU-FM, which might also make it invalid as the publication of a university.
The remaining sources are all WP:PRSOURCES about the Unbeatable DLC and the Hatsune Miku Digital Stars live events, which also appear to fail MUSICBIO as it exempts reprints of press releases from counting towards notability.

In my WP:BEFORE, I found no other significant sources about Paige, so unless any can be found I'm not certain that this article should be retained. Perhaps it could be redirected to Unbeatable (video game), but given that she is only tangentially related to that game I don't think that would be a particularly great target, especially for anyone looking for more in-depth information about her. I'd love to be proven wrong about this if any better sources can be found, but, especially for a transgender musician with a big online following, the sourcing of this article is far weaker than I'd personally feel comfortable with when it comes to a BLP. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Video games, and LGBTQ+ studies. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The fact that it's getting nominated for deletion instead of being rejected at the draft stage (where it remained for six months) is kinda funny yet it leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth hehe

I jest, because although I feel kinda disappointed, you bring up very valid points. I hadn't considered the music biography guidelines beyond the basic WP:GNG and didn't realize that not one, but two of these sources were university-based and that they don't contribute to notability on enwiki. I also don't want to opt into merging with Unbeatable because it makes no sense to do that. She's a contributor to the game, but it's not like she's a lead developer. Her contributions are also relatively recent.

The two sites you named, AudioPhix and Merry-Go-Round Magazine seem to be long-running sites with dedicated editorials and appear generally reliable. AudioPhix in particular is a lart of a larger network of websites by the company Fansided, whereas MGRM is independent. I see no reason to not let them establish notability. That being said, the radio interview is also one of the only glimpses we get with Paige. She doesn't do interviews much, unfortunately. That, the Bandcamp interview, and one livestream that's related to a recent song of hers ("Do No Harm") are the only times I've ever seen her talk about her own work at length on other people's platforms. The interviews don't form my argument for her notability, though; their purpose is to complete the article more thoroughly. I'm afraid I didn't catch myself as well as I should've. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 15:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

It could be possible to instead have a Flavor Foley page, I think there could be more source material that way. ~2026-43981-48 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

While I agree with you in spirit, and that it would be great to have, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny in practice. Vane and Rice are usually self-promoted as individuals, and the same applies to their group with Jamie. Flavor Foley is remarkably new (founded in 2024) and hasn't had the chance to get covered by any secondary sources -- breaking a key notability guideline, which is also being argued for Jamie here. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 22:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I hadn't caught that the article had been moved from draftspace. Given that the article has been worked on for so long and clearly has editors dedicated to it, I would be supportive of re-draftifying the article as an alternative to deletion. This is definitely one of those cases where I can very easily see the topic's notability looking very different given at least a year's time. Or, this could be merged into the Flavor Foley draft if ever they're shown to be notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Yeah I straight up moved it from draftspace to main because it'd been like 8 months under review with no word on it, so I thought "fuck the rules just this once". I consider myself to be a pretty decent editor, but a more seasoned reviewer would've caught these issues during the draft stage. I'm also for re-draftifying since this might get more notability as Paige gets more high-profile work and/or media coverage in the future. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 23:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - Musicbio doesn't have to be met, only GNG - it's an or, not an and in criteria - and the WP-Three are fine here. AudioPhix is solid, MerryGoRound is fine, and Bandcamp's publication is an independent editorial as far as I can tell - plus it's seven paragraphs, which is absolutely Sigcov. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete- I don't think this is suitable for Wikipedia, as there just isn't enough verifiable secondary source information to confirm notability. It's a textbook case of WP:BFDI to me, in that despite Jamie Paige undeniably being popular, there isn't enough reliable confirmation of this (and what little that does exist is mostly composed of student publications). I personally think this should be deleted until she's covered by an adequate amount of notable publications to fulfil the requirements of such an article. N0tFor$ale (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - This subject is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia. For one, the article only features 3 reliable, notability contributing sources, (outside of Unbeatable,) which, MerryGoRound, is routine music promotion rather than in-depth coverage. This already doesn't meet GNG, and the article also blatantly fails Musicbio. As mentioned by N0tFor$ale, this is an example of WP:BFDI, and Paige isn't suitable for a page. Beanbeans424 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Arnel David

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

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of a temporary account as requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Proposed deletion Arnel David. I have no opinion on the actual proposal and won't watch this discussion.

Justification is lack of notability and self-publishing of the article. Article is about an army colonel of no particular notability, with biographical information either without references or based on self-generated references (for example biographical box on self-authored army article). The press source quoted is actually the local base and internal-comms bulletins and therefore does not represent the significant press coverage required for notability. Also looks to be nearly entirely self authored and self-maintained as User:Army Strategist’s contributions are primarily to this article, a book he co-edited as part of his role in the US Army and a single other US army officer. As noted in Talk:Arnel David the whole article seems to be intended as a personal CV. ~2026-43660-38 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Speedy delete. This seems to be a case of self promotion, and the same goes for the articles for Matthew J. Van Wagenen and Military Strategy in the 21st Century, no notability at all and most of the edits made by just one person. HallyTall (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@HallyTall Which specific criterion for speedy deletion are you referring to? FaviFake (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Video games, Military, Artificial intelligence, Philippines, England, Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources. Bearian (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Sister Other Paranoia

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

I speedied this as A7, but RainCandy U has requested restoration on the understanding that I would bring it here. It's not even released, I can't see any way in which it meets WP:Notability (video games). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Software, and Japan. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 12:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - While Sister Other Paranoia is currently unreleased, I believe it has received substantial independent coverage that provides a credible basis for notability. The game has been covered by multiple independent publications, including Anime News Network, AUTOMATON WEST, and Game*Spark. This coverage includes its announcement, development, gameplay, an interview with writer and director nyalra, and its first-day Steam wishlist milestone. The article's references document this coverage. I understand that the game being unreleased may make its notability more difficult to establish, but I believe the existing independent coverage should be considered rather than treating its unreleased status alone as determinative. RainCandy U (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom fails WP:Notability (video games) and is WP:TOOSOON, promotional and interviews and annoucements are not reliable, independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Serenity Forge#Games, where it is already included in the list of games. I agree that the current available sources, both in the article and found upon searches, just fall into the category of run of the mill announcements and the like, and it is too soon to see if it will receive more in-depth coverage upon release. But, a valid redirect target exists to use as an WP:ATD, and if it does end up getting significant coverage after release, it can then be easily restored as an article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Serenity Forge#Games without prejudice against re-creation with post-release sources. I will say this is a WP:NOTBURO situation; the game will release before this AFD is eligible to close. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep A substantial amount of detailed reporting has been provided by multiple independent media outlets.--Kainioaefa (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article should be kept because I think there are several relevant sources that establish its notability, including references to renowned news websites that provide sufficient coverage. Also, this game is less than a week away from release, so WP:TOOSOON does not seem to apply. If every article considered WP:TOOSOON were deleted, wouldn't games such as Pokémon Winds and Waves also be subject to AfD? ~2026-44227-91 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

List of Assassin's Creed characters

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

This article has gradually turned into a catalog of just about every named character who has appeared in an Assassin's Creed game, regardless of whether there is any real reason to cover them here. The page is now over 400 kB and tagged since 2013. We have individual entries for major protagonists alongside one-off NPCs, multiplayer characters, minor relatives, assassination targets and historical figures who happen to appear in a game. A lot of it is essentially plot summary.

I'm also not sure what the actual inclusion criterion is supposed to be at this point. Brotherhood, for example, has entries for characters like Angelina Ceresa and Margherita dei Campi. They can certainly be verified as existing, but that does not explain why they need an entry in an encyclopedic list of characters from a franchise this large. The same problem repeats throughout the page. See WP:SALAT and WP:NOTPLOT.

This has been discussed on the talk page for years. Others have been were already trying to cut down the plot material and minor characters since 2014, I raised splitting out the historical figures in 2022, and the more recent discussion has again raised both WP:TNT and splitting the casts by game. None of that has really solved the problem, and with every new game the list just gets larger. At this point I think starting again would probably be easier than trying to work out which parts of the existing 400 kB article should survive.

To be clear, I would also be open to Characters of Assassin's Creed [game] articles similar to the Final Fantasy character pages, where there is enough material about the cast's development and reception to support one. Likewise, there seems to be a reasonable subject in the way the series depicts historical figures, which could be dealt with in a separate, properly curated list rather than mixing hundreds of real and fictional people together here per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't see much value in keeping this version purely as a holding place for material which would need to be substantially culled and rewritten anyway. This would be without prejudice to somebody rebuilding the title later with an actual inclusion criterion, or creating more focused character articles where the sourcing supports them. Haleth (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Lists. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 02:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: What exactly is the deletion rationale here other than WP:TNT? The concept of "List of Assassin's Creed characters" is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but the way it was executed here is problematic. As long as the concept meets WP:LISTN, it should be kept. I don't think AfD is the appropriate venue for discussing inclusion criteria. OceanHok (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Obviously this article needs trimming as it is too long and full of plot summary and fancruft, but those are problems that can be resolved through editing. I'm not seeing an argument from the nominator that this isn't a notable topic. Series protagonists such as Ezio Auditore da Firenze and Edward Kenway have received significant coverage, and there are articles from reliable sources discussing them as a group, which easily satisfies WP:NLIST. MidnightMayhem (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

History of Chaotic Trading Card Game

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

I propose merging to Chaotic because of a lack of sources. I can not find anything on the Dracco Company, Draco Heads, Grolls & Groks, or Chaotic: Now or Never! I've already gone ahead and moved any relevant info to the Chaotic page, which focuses on the whole brand/franchise. This page on the card game history is overly detailed about in-game lore and lacks sources, and the few that it does have no longer work. So I propose we delete this page and make it a redirect to Chaotic or Chaotic Trading Card Game. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, Games, Toys, Companies, Denmark, and United States of America. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't seem to be anything to merge, it's very heavy WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively to Chaotic Trading Card Game. There are a few sections that are sourced; in particular, this goes into more detail on Chaotic: Now or Never! than the merge target. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Illyriad

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The main significant coverage is from this review from Gamezebo and various articles from Joystiq, with this one being the most indepth. However, articles from there all count as the same site for the purpose of GNG. The reviews from RS are insufficient - the 2011 AfD was on to something before it was withdrawn. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Star Racer (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced mostly to unreliable sources and appears to fail WP:GNG. While it did have some mentions in reliable sources, it's not enough to satisfy the significant coverage criterion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify as promising. There's like ~one good source each for development (Shacknews) and reception (RPS). It looks like this will release soon on Switch, so draftify in hopes of coverage from that. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Agree draftify for a game that has partial but inadequate RS coverage and an upcoming release on another platform seems appropriate. VRXCES (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: the first nomination from 2024 ended in draftification, and that iteration eventually expired into G13 deletion. The current iteration, however, appears to have been a recreation by the original creator (without formally requesting a refund of the first version); that probably does indicate a contesting of the previous draft result, and I'm not sure if that makes a return to draftspace as viable as may be hoped. (No opinion on the article itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Age of Ascent

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED with coverage only immediately after its announcement, the rest sponsored by Intel. The game basically failed miserably and did not garner any notability. The previous AfD's votes were not policy based at all, amounting to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. My last search for sources in efforts to expand this article yielded basically nothing. No sustained coverage that would confer notability. I think a notable (not in the wiki-sense) tidbit is that this article used to state "Dubbed as the pioneer of ultra-MMOs, Age of Ascent is set to revolutionize the genre." -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete as above. Although irrelevant for assessing GNG, it's a curious thing when an article hints at its subject's non-notability: The game was released out of early access on Steam in March 2022, but has never recorded any player activity since then. It's like when articles for non-notable games say something like "the game has not recieved any reviews". VRXCES (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Looks like this had a flash of coverage from a world record stunt, but nobody actually played or covered the game, and thus fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG. This is mentioned at List of video game crowdfunding projects and its developer at Illyriad, either of those a reasonable redirect target? ~ A412 ^talk! 15:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
With regards to the former, it probably shouldn't be listed. With regards to the latter, it would be irrelevant, and Illyriad appears potentially non-notable as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Albert Aretz

(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)reply

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)reply

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)reply
Delete There is no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The sources I could find are brief mentions, blogs, unreliable which don't satisfy notability. The draft which is Draft:Flamingo (YouTuber) have been denied twice, and there is a lot of [citation needed]'s in this draft. Artemhao (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per Artemhao. No attempt seems to have been made to meet GNG. Whipmywillows (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - poorly sourced; two sources of questionable reliability are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Planet Zoo: South America Pack

(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:

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))reply

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

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply
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)reply

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

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)reply
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)reply
Merge – Per above. FaviFake (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Then that would just be a list of release date, just like the current table. We don't need a standalone list for that. OceanHok (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone is free to create a standalone page for DLC content at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose With the outcome of the Cities: Skylines – Snowfall AFD now clear, it appears that neither deletion nor a merger is the preferred solution. Instead, the most viable path forward would be to create a new Planet Zoo expansion packs article. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Planet Zoo and Cities Skylines are too different things? Cities Skylines DLCs added new systems and mechanics, but the DLCs in Planet Zoo are not substantial and most of them have no critical reviews. Also, Cities Skylines post-launch updates received SIGCOV from RS, the same cannot be said for PZ. There is no discussion about these DLCs as a "group". Therefore, a standalone article fails both WP:LISTN, WP:SIZESPLIT and MOS:VGDLC. Given the actual content in this hypothetical list article is just gonna be a list of animals, it will fail WP:GAMECRUFT as well. OceanHok (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Niantic Spatial

(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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply
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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Strong Oppose redirect to Pokemon Go Pokemon Go has nothing to do with Niantic Spatial. Niantic Spatial is a company made up everything from Niantic not related to video games. Pokemon Go is not included in that. A discussion can be had if this can be merged to Niantic, Inc, but Pokemon Go is a completely inappropriate target. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply