Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Macintosh 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   Keep, the argument on the delete side was that there is already a category for the topic, which is not a substantial argument when we have a list of dog breeds that also has a category. The article can be improved, perhaps by using a table format and adding more information, and it needs references. However just because that hasn't been done yet isn't a good enough argument to make for it to be deleted. Chetblong ( talk ) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Macintosh games

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete for two reasons. Firstly, eight months after being tagged as unreferenced, none of it is sourced. Secondly categories are much more suited to collecting data like this. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful list in need of cleanup. It's not on a deadline. SashaNein (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:USEFUL. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't spit non-policies in my face. SashaNein (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And you believe that WP:DEADLINE is a policy? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh. She didn't introduce WP:DEADLINE as an imperative. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources, categories are better suited. Furthermore, I bet that there are millions of red linked games that someone might be tempted to add to this list (I would also bet it's less than 10% complete). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per TenPoundHammer --T-rex 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pages in category "Mac OS games": 621. As stated before this seems better suited to categories which already exist. Even Category:Mac OS-only games exists. If it ends up deleted please redirect Mac games to something suitable like the category Faradayplank (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and close Catgories and lists are not exclusive and do not compete with each other. See WP:CLN. It is considered disruptive behaviour to nominate either in this way. This is an obviously notable subject for a list. The content should largely be common sense. -- neon white talk 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN is a guideline, not a policy. WP:V is policy. Also there is NO extra detail in the article that wouldn't be found in a category, it is just a simple list of article links. Nothing else. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is called a navigational list. Have a good read of WP:LISTS especially LISTS. They are a major part of wikipedia navigation and do not conflict with categories. It is the consensus of the community that neither should be nominated for deletion on grounds of overlap. -- neon white talk 15:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW Who considers it "disruptive behaviour"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again, who considers it disruptive? Given that I've nominated a bunch of similar articles which have all been successfully deleted I am looking for a specific place where this consensus was reached. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – We already have other such articles such as List of Nintendo Entertainment System games with corresponding category list, the former containing plenty of red links; in fact, it looks like more red links than this list article. With that said, also agree with SashaNein about cleanup. MuZemike (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mention the other useful list, else he'll go on a crusade to have that notable list removed as well. SashaNein (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't tempt me. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NOT. Better presented as a category, and no point in listing a couple hundred games on this list. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The list is not indiscriminate, it has clear criteria in line with guidelines. Again categories and lists do not compete with each other. -- neon white talk 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is that criteria? Is the criteria simply games that run on a Mac? Is it games that run on current Macs? If it is simply every game that runs on a Mac, do we include games that run within emulators like VirtualPC? How about games that run in WINE? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The stated criteria is "Macintosh video games available for any version of Mac OS in native mode" -- neon white talk 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - along with the other hundred or so similar lists in Category:Video game lists by platform, including three featured lists. Nifboy (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And you don't see any difference between those lists which include other information which can't be included in a category and this one which is just simply a list of article links? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's the equivalent of deleting a page because it's a stub. Nifboy (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ZOMG turn into category This thing SCREAMS "turn me into an easy navigational category". No added information.  Only wikilinks.  A category would be easier to maintain and 0 information would be lost doing it. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is valid navigational list, fully complying with guidelines guidelines. -- neon white talk 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lists and categories are not exclusive. It has been shown that it is possible to have a featured list of video games by adding more information. If this list doesn't provide added information when compared to the category, the solution is to add the information, not to delete the list! Treat it as a kind of stub; AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said at the top, the article has been tagged for eight months as unreferenced and eight months and approximately forty edits later it still has zero references. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - We already have a category for this purpose. It makes no sense to duplicate this content, and it goes without saying that open-ended lists attract all sorts of non-notable additions (like Movod 2, for example). -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  11:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN explains why lists and categories are considered both valid and neither preferred. -- neon white talk 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It concerns me that nobody seems to be dealing with the question "Does having this list improve the ability for a Wikipedia user to find access to appropriate articles?". There are wikipedia policy's and guidelines that go either way, and the idea behind these debates isn't vote counting - its about achieving consensus on compiling a collection of appropriate and useful information. I think we would do much better with this topic, if we focused on whether or not having the page is useful to wikipedias aims, rather than simply quoting competing policy and guidelines. Where's our consensus guys? Does this list help our users get access to relevant and appropriate information in Wikipedia about the subject? Less of "it does/doesn't meet policy" and more "does this help us" methinks! Icemotoboy (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia: Ignore all rules. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And now to contradict what I just said, Deletion policy states that These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. MuZemike (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, does this article add any additional value to Wikipedia? It's a duplicate listing (and just a list) of the Macintosh games. The category is a much better format (easier to maintain, more navigable). If the article however would be turned into a table with release dates, publishers, etc, then I can see some use for it. But then, Chronology of Macintosh games might be a more appropriate name for that. Rasadam (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that in its current form, this list effectively duplicates the "Mac OS games" category. But I think it could be very useful and encyclopedic. Deleting it seems like a waste... it would be similar to deleting a stub or an otherwise undeveloped article. I'd like to work on it, but I can't guarantee anything soon (especially not within the day or two that this discussion will remain open). Thus I recommend that the article be kept and improved. I'll certainly help out, time permitting. --Iamunknown 07:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We have an entire Category:Video game lists by platform, so I'm wondering why the Mac list is being singled out in this fashion. I'm not trying to invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS here, but I would like to know what the consensus is regarding lists like these, which have well-defined but perhaps overly broad criteria leading to a very long list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Macintosh is less of a gaming platform and more of an OS. (Yes, that does imply that I would support the deletion of a few more of those lists) --T-rex 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That could appear to be POV statement or strawman argument. The issue is not whether Mac is a gaming platform or not, the AfD was raised because:  the article was unsourced, and the requester felt that categories were much more suited too this.  What this discussion needs to decide is if we can agree on whether this list as it standards adds or takes away from users navigating to pages on wikipedia. Mac's have a well referenced and verifable commitment to games across its iPods and iMacs that arguably is gaining momentum (1, 2, 3, 4).  I think whatever the consensus we should agree on something that benefits users by not being confusing.  I.e. A level of standardization in the VG Project on this issue would be great.Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First saying that Macintosh is an OS is not POV, but a simple indisputable fact. Secondly iPods are certainly not Macintoshes, they are mp3 players. The subject is not apple --T-rex 05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting that saying "Macintosh is less of a gaming platform and more of an OS" without citation could appear to be a POV statement, I provided some references that would dispute that statement, and that regardless it was a strawman argument.  Lets try and focus the discussion on the usefulness of the list vs. category not debate whether "Mac OS" is more or less worthy of Video Game lists.Icemotoboy (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, what you feel about OS X is irrelevant to the discussion. As I stated below, Lists is very clear that lists and categories of the same thing actually improves navigation as readers have a preference either way (Some would want an article-based list, some would want to sift through a category).
 * It's clear that the list is valid as a list, even with an identical category. What the discussion should then be about is how well it meets criteria for being an article based on its content. Obviously it needs references, tag it. It's not a red link garden, it links to many other valid articles. I might suggest making the list into a table to make it sortable. As for the scope of the list I'd say it's very useful as there are many games I had no idea were released on the Mac. Plus it's a personal amusement to me every time I hear someone claim Macs don't have games, and an article like this is a poster child for why Wikipedia exists; to educate people and spread knowledge. Anyway, unless someone wants to challenge policy, we've confirmed it's existence is legit now let's go over how to improve it (as that is supposedly why we're all here). --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid list according to policy (which explicitly states that categories and lists of the same items may coincide with each other). Hell, it looks cleaner than other lists I've seen on Wikipedia. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- no point having a list if it does nothing a category couldn't. Reyk  YO!  02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * List and categories are both welcome even if they cover the same thing, as stated in Lists --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (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.