Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological list of GameCube games


 * 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 Merge to List of GameCube games. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 01:09Z 

Chronological list of GameCube games

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Here's the thing, if this list was done and perfect, I'd see no reason to delete it. However, it is only about 20 to 40% complete, and the only user who seems active it working on it is User:Bovineboy2008. Now, I don't want to just destory all of the hard work he's done, but I also don't want him to waste anymore time on a list that we may not even want. As it stands, it's just an inferior shoot-off of List of GameCube games which, at this pace, won't be done until the end of the year. Also, I don't like encouraging more than one list for a console, as it's hard enough to keep just one up to date. So I think we should go ahead and either kill it or save it, but not let it dangle in this semi-finished state. SeizureDog 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - The list seems redundant at best. Though I must say, incompleteness (unless it can never be complete) isn't a good reason to delete something as the nature of the wiki encourages incomplete entries to be completed later when other editors come upon an article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I think that we should get more people to work on it, or else it won't be done until next Christmas. If we can't get more people to work on it, then delete it or use it to help with the other list if it needs help. --Austinsimcox 15:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The length of time it will take to complete this is irrelevant there is no deadline. The list is useful and should be allowed to be completed.  Shimaspawn 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep So, it is only being worked on by one user, and he'll take a while to complete it? So what?  That's not grounds for deletion.  The organizational information it offers is reasonable, see also prior discussion on the Playstation lists.  If you're really troubled by it being a separate list, talk to the user about merging the information to the List of Gamecube games or working on it in his/her userspace.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Incompleteness is a reason for cleanup, but not usually a reason for deletion. So unless there's another problem with the article, I'd say keep and hopefully interested editors will get it updated. Dugwiki 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Incompleteness isn't a reason to delete, but the list is somewhat redundant, and List of GameCube games contains far more information. I'm undecided as to whether the chronological format is of use; I think there's an argument to be made.  But I think this list should be expanded with some of the other's information (developer, publisher) in order to make it more useful, or else the dates should be merged to the other list (which contains years, but not exact dates, of release currently).  Hm... wonder whether there's a way to make a table sortable by selected header... Shimeru 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Too much redundancy with List of GameCube games, so merge the release date data. Wikitables sortable by column has already been done successfully, example: List of Wii games. --SubSeven 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per SubSeven. The redundancy could be easily avoided by merging the articles together and supplying a sortable wikitable.  Arkyan 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if we had code for stuff like this. Are we capable of making tables where we can do things like "Sort by title/year/company" etc? Or what exactly do you mean.--SeizureDog 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have code that does that and makes it quite easy to incorporate. The example listed above by SubSeven is a good example of how it works. Arkyan 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that. Links next to sigs=easy to miss. In that case, merge ftw.--SeizureDog 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can also support above merge The above merge using a sortable table sounds pretty reasonable. I'd support that or keeping, either one. Dugwiki 22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to sortable table. Dr bab 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to a sortable table, since incompleteness is not a deletion criterion; it clearly has narrow enough scope to be maintainable. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no deadline to complete articles.  That being said, I believe a merge to List of GameCube games and converting that into a sortable table (if I remember correctly, class="sortable prettytable" ) is appropriate.  Two additional suggestions: replace "Year" in List of GameCube games with "Date" (in the format YYYY-MM-DD and eliminate sorting by letter (essentially a prerequisite for a sortable table).  -- Black Falcon 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, since closing admins are not slaves, I recommend closing as keep and suggesting a merge (if that is indeed the consensus) on one or more talk pages. -- Black Falcon 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see no pressing reason to delete, given that articles such as Chronology of PlayStation 2 games hasn't been nominated either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with nominating that as well...--SeizureDog 13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.