The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ultrakill[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

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

After months of looking for sourcing for this article and monitoring it, I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that this early-access game falls just short of the general notability guidelines. While it has received some coverage from reliable sources, none have offered any critical commentary outside of a listicle. To my knowledge, the only site that has done that so far is Kotaku. Not even RPS gave any critical commentary.

Maybe when the game is out of early access it'll get proper reviews and worthy of a standalone page, but for now I think WP:TOOSOON applies. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• as i said in the talk page, there were the 3 minimum sources... but one of them was about the sex update, which got removed twice for being about the sex update (funniest shit i've ever seen). if it can be reinstated and stay there, i think it can just barely stay cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The game is already very popular and well known in the retro shooter community, there are tons of Youtube videos about it that could be used as sources, the game already has sold over a million copies according to several tracker sites and it's to be expected that it will remain this popular throughout its early access period and its eventual release. Games nowadays can often remain in Early Access for a long time while actually already being well known and received. I'm not sure how exactly the sources are counted for notability, but I don't think they have to be reviewing the game just to prove that it's notable? It might not be enough to prove certain things about the game, but isnt the mere existence of several articles about it enough to prove that it's notable?Tajoshu (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per wp:rspyt, user-generated content, like youtube reviews where some guy talks about how ultrakill is like getting your blood replaced with adrenaline via the urethra or something, are considered unreliable. if it's a video from a source already considered reliable (like ign or something), it inherits its reliability. as is, though, not enough of those exist yet

that aside, my comment still stands that it at best only barely meets the minimum requirements if the statement on the sex update gets to rematerialize into the article cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The game already passes GNG even in its Early Access state, with previews in three reliable sources. I also found an additional piece of SIGCOV from a different PC Gamer author. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  i added the sources :) idk i hope it's enough -twixbat (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  i don't know if they're reliable enough but i added some more sources and reviews in the reception section! how many more does it need? (i added 2 more) -twixbat (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  also i found some more im gonna add later but i have to go to school now so :( it will have to wait twix ✦ talk to me! 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  incidentally, should something be done about sources 4-22 all being ingame text? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• support, in addition to the dearth of reliable sources the article is written more like a fan guide than an objective overview Ivannilych (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Just to clarify what your "support" means, you are in favor of deleting or keeping the article? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It seems like they are in favor of deletion. But I should remind the user that deletion is not a substitute for cleanup (WP:NOTCLEANUP), nor is a lack of sources in the article grounds for deletion when sources exist that are unused in the article. (WP:NEXIST). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Tentative keep - Although the current article version is incredibly bloated by overly detailed gameplay, plot, a dozens of citations to game text (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), the subject does seem to meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion (WP:GNG) based on sigcov in RS'es. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  that third part was dealt with while you were typing this (probably), taking the other two back to the talk page, because it turns out i completely forgot to send a message ages ago cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep it's weak, but it seems to meet notability thresholds per other users' observations. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Ultrakill is one of the most well known "boomer shooters" if not the most, and deleting this page is definitively a double-edged sword. On one hand this page is a useful reference for a quick overview of the game. But other the other hand, it contains numerous claims that are wrong or aren't fit for the game's Wikipedia page (that despite repeated edits to correct these issues, are bringed back for some reason). But I believe it would be best for it to be deleted or deactivated for the time being. There are already wikis dedicated specifically for the game and are actively maintained and updated with detailed information that better represent the current game. The lack of sources is obvious and there currently isn't really any solution, I've thought of possibly backing up information with the help of citations from the developer commentary streams (one of which that has released just last week, offering up-to-date information about many things). But the main issue is obviously more about the lack of any review on the game, and the few that exist date back to when the game's team was first merged with New Blood and that the game entered early access. These aren't as relevant anymore with how much the game has changed and expanded. Once the game reaches its full release and that a multitude of reviews start popping up again with information and critics that better reflect the game as it has become, then I believe it would be relevant again to have a new page for Ultrakill appearing here. I do want to point out that I'm not a common user of Wikipedia at all, this is just my conclusion as someone who often plays this game and is active in its community, I tried my best to inform myself on the deletion procedures but I might not have grasped some things correctly. I still stand by my opinion that this page doesn't currently need to exist considering its content. -FrizouWasThere (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  AfD is not cleanup. Its "content" is irrelevant and articles are a work in progress. What matters is whether there are sources to prove its notability, and there are numerous previews of the game. As long as the page is not a complete loss - and it's not - it can be fixed. It obviously still needs cleanup, but again, that's not relevant to a deletion discussion at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rewrite Out of an abundance of caution, I should disclose that I am the an administrator of the ULTRAKILL Miraheze Wiki, which is a potential conflict of interest.

I agree with zxcvbnm's judgement that ULTRAKILL passes the GNG guidelines and is fairly iconic nowadays even in its early access state, with a significant cultural influence in many spaces. In addition, it has likely sold upwards of a million copies and is very highly rated, which I believe makes it more noteworthy as well.

However, the article requires a rewrite at the very least. As I've previously mentioned concerning this article, Wikipedia is not a game guide and none of the information is essential for anyone interested in a general overview of what ULTRAKILL is ­— and, quite frankly, the article does not do a very good job of representing ULTRAKILL as a game either despite its gratuitous detail, largely missing its heavy stylish action influences and claiming that its movement mechanics resemble Quake and Doom, which they simply don't.

The Wikipedia article should only be concerned with a general overview of the game, instead of listing every weapon included in the game, going into detail about bonus content, hard damage, or including a whole paragraph about a mod that one of the developers made for the game. I think ULTRAKILL is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but the article's current iteration is of rather low quality. Corviraptor (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rewrite I concur with the above that the game has reach fair notability among reputable sources, and it is likely to grow further as the game approaches its full release. I have taken it upon myself to rewrite sections of the article to better fit Wikipedia's style and scope. Feedback and edits are appreciated. PencilVoid (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The article now cites five independent sources (there were only two when I tagged it last month), four positive reviews and one report. The latter is the only one that makes an independent claim of popularity ("has been met by a new wave of positive user reviews for the already popular shooter"). Are positive reviews enough to establish notability? NebY (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Whether a review's positive or negative doesn't actually matter? There have been games with completely negative reviews that are notable, see Ride to Hell: Retribution. All that matters is that reliable sources saw fit to mention the game in a significant way. So far, Kotaku, TheGamer, PC Gamer have all done so, in the case of PC Gamer, several times. This means it just scooches past notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep It does just seem to edge over the line for notability, PC Gamer is reliable, the articles from Kotaku is from when it was reliable and TheGamer just before. Shaws username . talk . 11:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The rewrite seems to have fixed most of the issues with the article's quality, and ULTRAKILL appears to pass GNG anyway. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 14:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: Has enough sources to pass GNG StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rewrite I agree with Corviraptor vghfr, harbinger of chaos 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.