Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Germany. 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 {{Gpedia: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|Germany|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Germany

Detlef Dahn

Detlef Dahn (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Did not win a medal and was eliminated in round two, so fails NSPORT BrigadierG (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TAFISA

TAFISA (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I can't find reliable secondary sources on this organization. There are online mentions of people or organizations participating in these events, but I haven't found any reliable secondary sources about the organization itself. I have asked on the talk page if there are sources in languages besides English but have received no response. There is a slow edit war going on about who is in charge of the organization and where it is headquartered. There are no sources for those changes outside of organizational websites.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Sources don't come close to passing WP:PRODUCT. ––FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Germany. ––FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redirect to The Dark Eye#Video games as a WP:ATD. Does not seem to be standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Merge per nom and WP:ATD to The Dark Eye. Eurogamer is an RS and meets SIGCOV, the other two are routine, non-significant descriptions, so doesn't count towards GNG. Otherwise, searching on Metacritic, Google, News, Books... doesn't find much RS. Still, ref 1 and 2 are RS (despite the latter being a very brief press announcement), so maybe preserving some of the content from the refs through merging would be helpful? I think redirecting is also okay, but would oppose deletion. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep. According to WP:VGRS Eurogamer is RS, and the coverage seems to meet WP:SIGCOV. Same for gamepressure (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#www.gry-online.pl). IGN is reliable but the review is video or too short too meet SIGCOV. The article is a substub that needs expansion but I see no compelling reason to redirect this right now. Expansion seems warranted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redirect to The Dark Eye#Video games. While the Eurogamer Germany review exists and on the first glance it looks decent in coverage, after reading it in detail, I've realized it offers very little information about the game at all. The whole thing is more of the reviewer's rant about his bad experience, with the only features being mentioned: automatic battle, the boss appearing every ten levels and two pay to win currencies (and of course, none of these were discussed beyond pure mentions). Fails WP:GNG but should be preserved per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree, as there is all right content from an RS, probably selecively merging the content from the refs would be better. I've read it, and it is quite negative without too much info, but still okay for merging. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get firmer consensus to redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment I still oppose just a redirect- there may be criticism that the Eurogamer review isn't very informative, but it's still a RS with good info I feel is worth preserving. Jovanmilic97, is there really nothing here that could be briefly mentioned in that article? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • weak keep per Piotrus, sourcing seems above the bar though not great. Hobit (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Just scrapes by on WP:SIGCOV, as per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.