Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Overwatch

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 redirect‎ to Overwatch. plicit 03:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Overwatch (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)

There is a consensus at the Video Games WikiProject that we shouldn't create this type of WP:REDUNDANTFORK between a game and its gameplay (the same thing). This is already covered elsewhere, and otherwise violates WP:VGSCOPE. The characters section has already been turned into an article at Characters of the Overwatch franchise. The complete list of levels/maps is a violation of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE, with mass amounts of unsourced information. That leaves nothing left to WP:PRESERVE. Even if we added a reception or development section, it would duplicate what we already have at the game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or if anything Merge to the Overwatch franchise article. The claim of "mass amounts of unsourced information" is exaggerated, and while there are several paragraphs that need sourcing, this should be obvious they can be fixed or trimmed down with how much coverage Overwatch has gotten. Further, things like lists of levels are not forbidden per VGSCOPE or GAMEGUIDE, but rarely do you see every game level get discussed in anything more than name drops, which is why we normally don't have such lists since the bulk will only be sourced to primary material. However, all the maps in Overwatch have been discussed to various degrees in secondary sources, which doesn't immediately disqualify those lists; obviously this is the exception, not the rule. Masem (t) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a list of Overwatch maps would be feasible, but the article is too detailed like a WP:NOTDATABASE. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per NOPAGE. "Gameplay of X" simply does not work as a standalone article, for the same reason that we couldn't make a "plot of X" article for a book or film. The gameplay essentially is the game, and therefore can't really be covered separately. I do think that this title could make a useful redirect, but I disagree that there is anything here worth merging. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some standalone articles which do work for games where keeping gameplay/rules in the main article would result in a too large article. For example, Rules of chess has a good article rating. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the same thing. Chess has had a thousand-year history and the rules have changed over the years, and are somewhat customizable. Overwatch, however, has had the same set of gameplay the whole time, and there can't really be discussion of one without the other. I simply think that this article does not work as a split, since it does not have any independent development or reception. Any attempt to make such a section would essentially just be a copy-paste of the relevant section of the Overwatch article, showing how this doesn't work as a separate article. Most of the information in this article is also not suitable for merging into the main article, which is why I instead chose Redirect. Also, as a final note, there is recent precedent against keeping these articles. See here, here, and here. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough secondary sources for a standalone article and merging back would run into WP:TOOBIG issues. There are parts that can be trimmed/removed (per Masem above) and more critical analysis could be incorporated so this feels like a cleanup issue instead of a deletion issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two main prose sections, the beginning of Fundamentals and the Game modes. It might be a bit lengthy, but I don't think that counts for WP:TOOBIG. IgelRM (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given the article's large amount of sources to wade through, would those arguing Keep be willing to share examples of SIGCOV per Wikipedia:THREE? I feel a more valid argument can be generated if it's made more clear what sources are being considered as major coverage in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is (or should be) questioning the subject's notability. Rather they are questioning whether or not the page should exist per WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:NOPAGE, and more. λ NegativeMP1 02:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Overwatch. Despite a large amount of sources for this article, larger video games with far more detailed content on their gameplay do not have standalone articles about their gameplay. A good 90% of this page is just the history of Overwatches gameplay changes and its maps. I see no reason why any of the notable content in this article requires a stand alone article. Clubspike2 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Overwatch. Sushidude21! (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.