Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Console role-playing game


 * 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 role-playing video game. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Console role-playing game

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Also up for deletion: Computer role-playing games

The subject is completely based on original research. The only evidence found is in the form of blogs, forum posts, websites which fail WP:RS, including WP:SPS, or items which blatantly violate WP:Synthesis. The subject is further putting undue weight on the English market and classifications, when historically most video game rpgs have been sold in Japan. Arguments against this use the fact that this is an English Wikipedia to dismiss this and that the subject should follow the "spirit" of the rules. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral: The protracted discussion in Talk:Console role-playing game touched on some good points on both sides of the issue. The main argument I saw in support of keeping the article was that the term "console RPG" basically means "console-style RPG", and describes the overall style of RPG that was first developed on game consoles, even though this style of RPG is now available on many different platforms.  The style in question includes a mostly linear storyline with relatively little exploration and customization available, simplified controls, and limited gameplay elements, all of which are essentially by-products of the limited capabilities of early game consoles on which games like Final Fantasy were developed.  That style of game has a strong following that makes it notable within the realm of RPGs in general, though this is not covered well in the current article and is largely unsourced.  I think better sources need to be found that describe this subgenre reliably - this is one of those grey areas where there is plenty of evidence that the subgenre exists, but little official coverage exists of the subgenre itself. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion what is described there is the difference in regions as opposed to the type of hardware. The basis, which is touched upon a bit in Cultural differences in role-playing video games seems to be based more on the basis of their origin - ie the rpg comes from Japan and most western reviers know only about the console rpgs from japan versus those from the US which were historically centered around the PC. This has much to do with the Video game crash of 1981 and the domiance of Japan in the console market and US in the PC market and therefore I believe the basis for the division is fundamentally flawed.
 * I realise this is partly my conjecture (though the afore mentioned article does have RS coverage to support some of my claims), but there is no support for the current divisions either. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable explanation. SharkD   Talk  04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh I've always though both this and the computer role-playing game articles were missing the point. During the early-to-mid nineties we were a lot closer to the situation where these articles would have been relevant but even then it wouldn't have been perfect. The whole concept of RPGs on consoles being different to computer based ones is bunk these days. The main problem is that there are three 'splits' between the two sorts of RPG: East Vs West, turn-based Vs action and console Vs computer. Now, we use video game genres in the biblical sense; genre refers to gameplay. We already have an action RPG article, what we're missing is a turn-based RPG article to compliment it; what I'd suggest is merging verified content from both into a turn-based RPG article. Someoneanother 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that were to happen Role-playing video game could be an umbrella article that links to all the related areas and sub-genres. Someoneanother 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a move to put Role-playing game as the central one and split it off into major branches: Video games, tabletop and live-action so probably both areas could have some info on the history; but the history doesn't mean they are speerate entities. As i've noted most of that console v. computer is based on the east v. west and people confuse that with consoles because most video games from the east are on consoles; moreso video game rpgs. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The classical rpgs goes more into the development of action-based rpgs vs. turn-based and the theoretical demise of the latter. Don't just assume a source supports this article's existence because the naming of the article happens to have "console" in it. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The terms "console RPG" and "computer RPG" are recognized terms in the gaming media, and this should be obvious from some of the references used for this article which specifically deal with the concept of console RPGs. There is nothing original about the subject matter of this article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide such ones that are reliable sources that don't violate synthesis or aren't from marketing labels? That has been the problem. They cannot be found and as such the arguments I believe are flawed because they're based on a fluid advertising label that is placed to sell units. If it can sell another unit, slap the label on it mentality. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't GameSpot a reliable enough source for you? They specifically use the term "console RPG" to refer to this genre/subgenre of RPGs. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just doing a Google search for "Console RPG", I came across this link: "Are classical console RPGs the way of the past?". The author of this article describes in fair detail what a "console RPG" is and how it differs from other genres. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also found "The History of Console RPGs" on GameSpot in the same search. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point still stands. This violating WP:NPOV by giving undue WP:UNDUE weight to US commentary when most video game RPGs are from Japan and furthermore its a WP:Content Fork as the same type of commentary is used to distinqush western RPGs from Japanese RPGs which almost all console rpgs happen to come from japan and almost all pc rpgs (most english speaking people know about) come from the US. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that most video game RPGs come from Japan? Perhaps in the last five to ten years as there have been less RPGs made in the US and/or Europe, but historically this is not an obvious point.  The amount of RPGs coming out of Europe has increased and most of those are what many see as 'Computer/PC' style instead of 'Console' style.  If there is a difference, it is not that vast.Caidh (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking more carefully at your 2, the gamespot one violates WP:SYNTH if we were to use it here. It just lists a bunch of games and says they're all console RPGs. The former does not define what a console rpg is. He just lists an evoluton spouting off a list of names and a few basic concepts that are common to all Role-playing games. Therefore, you still lack any proof and as such I do not have to defend my claims (as I'm not trying to put an article or info to present such) when you cannot bring claims that actually validate what a console RPG without reaching for original research to fill in the missing gaps.


 * Strong keep. That the article can be improved is not a reason to delete it. This is an encyclopedic topic. If the references there aren't good, add some! If you think that something is original research, change it! If you think the article should cover Japan more, add a section on Japan! Nobody is stopping you. The topic itself is fine and should not be deleted. Kwertii (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it can be and believe it is further more a point-of-view fork from Cultural differences in role-playing video games. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support a merger of both articles, as long as the points that are covered by RSs remain present. SharkD   Talk  04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - one good article is better than two iffy ones.  Probably merge the AFDs, too.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for now; I won't oppose a merge in the future if consensus deems so. Remember that there is a third article that would also need to be addressed (Cultural differences in role-playing video games) should that be considered. Note: I have made the exact same statement at Articles for deletion/Computer role-playing game. –MuZemike 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See point in the other; this isn't the first time a merge/deletion has been discussed, just the first time its come here. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I wouldn't be opposed to merging the console role-playing game and role-playing video game articles, but definitely against deleting. There is valuable information in both articles which needs to be improved sure, but definitely not deleted wholesale.Caidh (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * please clarrify if you mean keep or merge or not. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Into Role-playing video game. An entire article on the topic of "console" role-playing games is unnecessary as the concept is outdated. Just because the term is recognized doesn't mean it should be used when it is clearly outdated and in some cases incorrect. The information could be trimmed, but not deleted outright.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge WP:PRESERVE useful information and redirect this article to Role-playing video game unless notability can be demonstrated. You can't make an article without proper sources that describe "console rpg's" in depth, rather than RPG's that happen to be on consoles or the history of RPG's on consoles.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into role-playing video game, and possibly merge relevant content into cultural differences in role-playing video games. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to role-playing video game, along with computer role-playing game. The small number of sources available that differentiate between these types of video role-playing game suggest that the pattern of differences is of only minor notability, of the sort that is best described in a single article rather than subjected to what may constitute a POV fork. Many of the differences ascribed to console RPGs relate to the dominance of Japanese titles in the console market, which has nothing particularly to do with the console platform. 10 different versions of Ultima were released on various console platforms, all of which break all the supposed conventions about console versus computer RPGs. Same goes for Balder's Gate, Everquest, Fallout, and all the other console RPGs that demonstrate this supposed pattern of divergence by platform doesn't have legs. The article cultural differences in role-playing video games could remain to describe the Asian vs. Western differences in video RPGs, although personally I don't think the few sources it has demonstrate enough notability for a whole article on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That article needs cleanup, and possible merge, there appears to somewhat better sourcing there and its easier to focus on one thing at a time. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:06, 11 January 2010 (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.