Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Color Computer 1 and 2 games from third parties


 * 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 delete. The arguments to delete are both far stronger and numerically superior. The basic criterion for notability of lists is that the topic of a list should have received WP:SIGCOV as a topic: see WP:LISTN. This has not been demonstrated here. I appreciate that the creator tried to include only notable games, but reviews of individual games only demonstrate notability of those games, not of this list. I'm setting aside the argument about The Rainbow; aside from the disagreement about its nature as a source, it doesn't impact the rest of the discussion materially. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Color Computer 1 and 2 games from third parties

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NOTDATA, just a bunch of technical details without context or indication of importance Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a video game list much like List of PC-98 games and List of CD-i games and countless others on Wikipedia at Template:Video game lists by platform.
 * As for indication of importance, in this list (unlike those other lists and many others on Wikipedia) every game either:


 * 1) comes from an already-notable publisher (like Avalon Hill), or
 * 2) was notable enough to have had an article written about it in a publication deemed notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, namely The Rainbow (magazine).
 * Carney333 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - even if they get the sourcing and context problems fixed (unlikely), there's simply no precedent for splitting lists by first party or third party releases. The best possible scenario the article creator could hope for is a merge/scope change of sorts, and even that's a long shot. Sergecross73   msg me  16:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then Be Bold and merge them.
 * Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)-- WP:DBN
 * Carney333 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Youre telling the wrong person this. I did not nominate your article for deletion, and you're not supposed to be "boldly merging" anything once a deletion discussion is actively happening. Besides, there's currently a rather strong consensus going to delete that other article. Merging info there would just get everything deleted. Sergecross73   msg me  17:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not originally nominate the article for deletion, but you did vote for / advocate deletion in your original post. So you are wrong that I am "telling the wrong person this" - my response pointing to Wikipedia's own stated policy of "Improve, Don't Remove" directly addresses YOUR post. Carney333 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You said "Then be bold and merge them". I was telling you it was too late to be bold and merge once an AFD is started. Cut it out with these weak "gotcha" attempts. Sergecross73   msg me  13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the same reason as Articles for deletion/List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy. I wish the creator had listened to the views being expressed there so we could have avoided yet another discussion, for the same topic, just from the "not by Tandy" side. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and update or Transwiki. The trash-80 was an important milestone platform 40 years ago, even if it didn't last, and this is a reasonable historical set of software to list... even if it doesn't necessarily fit on Wikipedia in this presentation. It would be a shame to delete this rather than finding an alternative format or platform in which to cover this. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens Actually is seems this is already at, at least partially or perhaps entirely?, at List of software for the TRS-80. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is a clear case of needless article forking Dronebogus (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that list. It was not connected to Template:Video_game_lists_by_platform. In any case, that is a list of all software of all varieties (not just games) for all of the various often incompatible types of TRS-80 computers (not just the CoCo).
 * Video games clearly are considered notable enough to have their own dedicated articles and lists.
 * Your post would be like pointing to a list of all types of software (including word processors, spreadsheets, and utilities) for ALL Apple computers regardless of mutual incompatibility (including the Apple II, Mac, and eMate) as a reason to delete List_of_Mac_games. Carney333 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as sources don't cover this as a distinct topic. There is nothing discriminate about this list compared to any other point in the game, and a redirect to TRS-80 Color Computer would be the most this deserves. CPORfan (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just a note, to be clear - the vast majority of the sourcing used is from The Rainbow (magazine), a magazine published by Tandy/RadioShack itself. Tandy/RadioShack is also the publisher of the computer platform itself. So this is basically the modern day equivalent to sourcing the entire List of PS5 games to PSN, the PlayStation's storefront. So we're also getting into WP:NOTCATALOGUE territory as well - the product list is just being sourced to the company's own product catalogue. Sergecross73   msg me  18:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The Rainbow WAS NOT published by Tandy/RadioShack. It was a completely independent publication, as were Hot CoCo, 80 Micro, 80-U.S., The Color Computer News, and many others. Tandy did have some in-house publications, including TRS-80 Microcomputer News (which ran from at least as far back as March/April 1980 to June 1984), and of course their various catalogs, but, again, the Rainbow  WAS NOT  an in-house Tandy publication. Carney333 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had any understanding of the topic matter, you would not only know that The Rainbow was the leading (most notable in Wikipedia jargon) Color Computer magazine, and that it was independent, but also how unthinkable to Tandy it was to even mention (let alone favorably review), or run ads for, software and hardware products not provided and sold by Tandy itself, as The Rainbow and all the independent publications did. Tandy's consistent pattern from start to finish of ignoring all third party products and attempting to monopolize the market for the various families of TRS-80 computers was a central dynamic and driving factor in this market, a constant grievance against the company by the user community, and contributed significantly to the eventual demise of those computer families.  Carney333 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just going by the wording on its Wikipedia article (The Rainbow was a monthly magazine for the TRS-80 Color Computer by the Tandy Corporation (now RadioShack).) because it was the only thing I could find on the obscure publication. I'd look further but this wasn't particularly a centerpiece of my argument so it's not like it changes my stance. Sergecross73   msg me  02:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Serge makes an excellent point above regarding WP:NOTCATALOGUE, which is a Wikipedia policy. Zero worthwhile independent coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Serge is in error. The article about The Rainbow uses confusing language at present. It currently starts,
 * "The Rainbow was a monthly magazine for the TRS-80 Color Computer by the Tandy Corporation (now RadioShack)."
 * The phrase "by the Tandy Corporation" here is providing explanatory detail about the computer, NOT about the magazine. Carney333 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've yet to provide a single counter to LISTN concerns or NOTCATALOGUE concerns. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use Wikipedia jargon on a newcomer, it would be courteous to link to the actual policy a given acronym or jargon item refers to. I searched Wikipedia for LISTN and came up empty.
 * Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand. - Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers.
 * Carney333 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been linked to you repeatedly here and at the other AFD. Your own use of jargon and plenty of linking to the Wikipedia project space suggests you're not quite as unfamiliar or lost as you profess. -- ferret (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do see now that there is a link to it in the other page. But you specifically also stated "repeatedly here". That is not true. It is not only not "repeatedly" linked here, it is not linked here even once.  Carney333 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the "catalog" criticism:
 * I could have just listed every third-party game I could find that merely existed (as others have done in countless other video game lists) as shown by having been advertised in publications like The Rainbow, and I think I even began with some such intentions. But in the face of criticism I then shifted to only listing a game in this third-party list if it was notable enough to get a review article (or article segment) or to have some other equivalent third-party coverage. I mentioned this four days ago above.
 * Furthermore, in the discussion about the Tandy games article, I went into detail, in a direct response to you, about how the catalog numbers are just a standard part of identifying nomenclature in this particular context. They could just as well be called product numbers, serial numbers, or the like.
 * You're of course free to disagree with me about the validity or persuasive power of my "counters". But please don't deny their existence. Carney333 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by LISTN criticism. Can you be specific about something I have NOT responded to?
 * If the concern is that a list is somehow unworthy, I've responded to that already, by pointing to advantages of a list.
 * If the concern is that there should not be two separate lists, I've responded to that already in detail explaining that similar splits have been done with other platforms, that even if that were not the case that it makes sense to do that here, and finally offering as a compromise to merge the two lists.
 * If the concern is that no list of Color Computer games is somehow worthy of existence here on Wikipedia, can you explain how? How does THIS list fail that test while other lists(Template:Video_game_lists_by_platform) pass? What is it that they have that this does not?  And, SPECIFICALLY, why could I not just add what they have that this does not, instead of us resorting to deleting the entire article (the Improve, Don't Remove principle)? Instead of dismissing this reasonable question with "whatabout" I ask you to actually engage it. Is it actually reasonable to require, and common for a list of video games to have, as a justification for its existence, some sort of article or citation pointing out that the entire body of video games of that platform or criterion is somehow noteworthy as an entire list?  Not the platform being noteworthy, not individual games or video games as such being noteworthy, no, that LIST, AS A LIST has to be justified with some cite?  Carney333 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..... You have no such sources. You keep adding sources to verify individual details of individual games. -- ferret (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to WP:NOTCATALOGUE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 11 December 2022 (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.