Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Konami code games (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Konami code. There is consensus that a stand-alone list is not appropriate but also that deleting the material altogether is neither.  So Why  06:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Konami code games
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:CATALOG. WP:GAMECRUFT material. A couple of examples are more than sufficient to mention on main article Konami Code. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I also nominated for deletion. It's been a while since I nominated two or more articles, so I'm a bit rusty.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete both, as per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. All the content appears to be is how to use the Konami code in every game, not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but trim and potentially merge to Konami code The code's use in games is a notable topic, and there are definitely some that can be sourced. As per WP:TRIVIA, we should only include those that have been commented on by third-parties, which would gut several of the games from both lists. As this might leave something rather short, that combined list can then be moved over into the Konami code article proper. This !vote should not be taken as a "keep as is", these need cleanup regardless. --M ASEM  (t) 13:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, like said, merging is also an option of course, to keep the best examples.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per what M ASEM said OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per above, the info can be adequately covered at the Konami code article. TheValeyard (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * keep I'm not 100% sure but Stand-alone lists seems to apply better than WP:NOTCATALOGUE and the concept seems to be notable. Reducing the list to the "best" examples brings us into the OR terrain, so better keep it. Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , your reasoning does not make sense. The concept is Konami Code, which is notable. List of Konami code games has one reference and List of non-Konami games using the Konami code has nine references, but you're saying that if we would merge it to a neatly sourced section on its main article, that would be original research? So the largely unsourced stuff currently, that's not original research? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being here unclear, "merge" by itself is not OR. I meant the "reduction to the best subset" (exmaples) could border OR (or at least I have seen this argumentation repeatedly elsewhere in WP against incomplete "example lists"). About the reach of notability, only the notability of the multiplicity of concrete Konami Code instances was shown (not the abstract concept as especially important or well designed or novel) so I would argue we HAVE TO represent the instances. The natural form is a list. Shaddim (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete both - Nothing against merging sourced entries on the list in theory, since Shaddim's OR objection only applies if they're presented as an example list instead of used to illustrate a point. However, looking over the sourced examples I don't see much of use, just iterations of "This is how to use the Konami Code in this game." Shaddim's claim that the notability of multiplicity means we have to list individual instances makes no sense; by that logic, Black Death should have a list of every person killed by the Black Death. Notable multiplicity is precisely why we shouldn't keep a list of individual examples. This is the same reason why articles on pop and jazz standards don't list every cover version.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems to be still a mistunderstanding against what I argued: the middle ground -> reducing the list to a list of examples, this act could (and maybe should?) be seen as OR. All the other solutions are fine for me, which are from my perspective: keep, merge (full?), delete the list or both. Regarding the Black Death, this is quite the opposite: Black Death is notable (in the meaning relevant) not in its individual instances of killings but as concept, it has properties which where novel and had impact on humankind in many signficant ways (while a complete list of all black death victims would be of great historical interest ;) ). The opposite is true for the Konami code: it's (small) relevance grew with every instance where it was used (or at least was WP notability established that way!). By itself it is an quite unimportant, non-novel and boring thing. PS: what about a Category instead of a list? Shaddim (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the appearance of the Konami Code is not a defining characteristic of a video game (WP:CATDEF). soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:20, 11 June 2017 (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.