Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IBM PC games

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. It is necessarily incomplete (to do it properly would include likely tens of thousands of entries, with constant new additions), is merely a list (perhaps it might make sense as a category.. maybe), and neither has nor could have any actual content. Improv 18:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. See List of computer and video games for precedents. Mikkalai 21:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps those should go as well. It looks like many of them were created by the same person, and all of them, in my opinion, are not encyclopedic. You're right that it's nice to be consistant between these things though. I'm not sure how much we should consider their merit as a group versus their individual merit though -- do you see any reason apart from the precedent that this/these pages should exist? If it would help, I will VFD the whole lot so we can decide on them as a group. Improv 22:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I voted delete on the "precedent" article and vote that way on this, too. This is one of those things like List of people:  the numbers are just so overwhelming that we'd be the Library of Congress of computer titles, only without any paid staff or curators.  Because no list like this can approach the infinity needed for comprehensiveness, the titles have been selected, and therefore the list is POV.  Mainly, though, it's simply uninformative.  If you go to this list, you already know the things you're looking for.  If you find them, you learn nothing about them.  Geogre 00:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that a non-comprehensive article is a POV article, but this is a problem that can be fixed over time. It is certainly not a valid reason to delete. &bull; Benc &bull; 05:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I regard it as inherently POV, though, since completion is simply not possible. I also (and I don't know what Ambi is talking about; killing lists would be loverly, but this is a catching the wind index) think we just don't learn or teach anything, so it's non-encyclopedic.  Anyway, that's me. Geogre 14:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. The "kill the index!" phenomenon returns. Ambi 03:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but make into a link to other indexes, e.g. it would like to List of MS-DOS games, List of Windows games, etc. WhisperToMe 04:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Until and unless categories become robust enough to make "List of..." articles completely obsolete (they're not), such articles are a valuable resource. Yes, this list should ideally contain tens of thousands of entries, and it's not anywhere close to that yet, but so what? There's nothing wrong with aiming big. Besides, given enough time, this article does have the potential to include all the thousands of notable (i.e., Wikipedia-worthy) computer games. Let the article grow over time. It's what we do here. &bull; Benc &bull; 05:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete all, unless someone is willing to Merge all these articles into one and redirect. Many of the same games are available on more than one operating system. Far more sensible to list games in a table with a column and "X" for each operating system for which a version has appeared. And arguments from precedent don't apply here. That an article that was somewhat similar has passed VfD voting does not mean that all later votes must approve similar articles. Similarly, that an article that was somewhat similar was voted for deletion on VfD does not mean that other voters cannot vote to save a similar article. Precedent alone is as bad an argument as "Wikipedia is not paper" alone. Jallan 23:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * We are currently discussing various schemes for categorizing computer software according to platform at Wikipedia talk:Categorization (please join the conversation!) I feel that when there are no "red links to aspire to" and no additional information or organization is provided by a large list, it is no better than a category on the same, especially since large categories are automated but large lists must be manually updated.  I'm strongly in favor of deleting this and replacing it with whatever we come up with at the Categorization talk page; right now, it looks a Category:Windows games subcategory of Category:Windows software will be the likely replacement of List of IBM PC games.  --Ardonik.talk 01:49, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * No DOS games allowed? -Sean Curtin 02:19, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Most likely Category:DOS games, which will become a subcategory of Category:DOS software. --Ardonik.talk 02:39, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. -Sean Curtin 02:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we have articles about games, it is helpful to have a list of them. I agree with Ambi's characterization of this delete proposal. Andris 21:24, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think a bunch of computer nerds like us can fill in the gaps!  --Alexwcovington 01:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.