Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames/old


 * 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party 8 minigames

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Also in this nomination:
 * List of Mario Party 6 minigames
 * List of Mario Party 7 minigames

Listcruft that is much better suited for a video game wiki. Previous mini-game lists for Rayman Raving Rabbids and Super Monkey Ball have been deleted or turned into redirects. Mini-games are important: but an entire list on them all is game guide content. If people want to know all that detail: they can check gamefaqs. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a video game guide, period. RobJ1981 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: RobJ, will you shut up about Game FAQs?! It doesn't matter that you can check it. Different sites are allowed to have the same info on them. Please read McKay's comment on the talk page for MP8. Henchman 2000 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete i would say this subject is notable, but unencyclopedic as it reads more like a walkthrough of each minigame. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "more like a walkthrough"? more than what?
 * Comment: I wouldn't go that far. It's just a short list of confirmed minigames for an upcoming game. It doesn't really read like a walkthrough, does it? --Bowsy (review me!) 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could someone tack on the following to this debate: List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames. Similar listcruft pages. I managed to put the correct AFD notice on them (which links here), but I can't get the next part of the process to work. RobJ1981 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Notable subject, citing reliable published sources. Shouldn't be deleted. Bowsy (review me!) 19:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (Author of article)


 * Strong Keep: Do you want this edit war over or not? This is about the only reasonable solution. Henchman 2000 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it's part of a resolution, I know that isn't a reason, but it's got reliable published sources, it's written (or can be written) in an encyclopedic manner, it isn't an instruction guide. I challenge anyone to find some real policy that it fails. Barring that, there's consensus (on the Talk:Mario Party 8 page). McKay 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am not using this to blackmail other users, I don't even know what blackmail is. I am using it as a way to finally resolve the mini game dispute. Henchman 2000 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC) If you do not believe this was said, ask Isotope23 yourself. Bowsy (review me!) 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Rather blatant listcruft. Also being used by Henchman 2000 in an attempt to blackmail editors in order to stop the edit war over Mario Party 8 (and I quote "RobJ, if you want this edit war over, get an admin to speedy keep the pages conserned with this unnecesary Afd. If you don't, once again, we will be getting no-where."). The consensus on the aforementionted talk page only concerns the Mario Party 8 article, IIRC.  Specifically, that lists will not be included, and prose will be used.  This article was created by Bowsy after a suggestion from Messedrocker, not as part of a consensus decision AFAIK.  Geoff B 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry is there somewhere that says that lists aren't allowed in wikipedia? There's nothing wrong with listcruft? Is there a policy on "listcruft" that I'm not aware of? McKay 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It needs to be noted: Suspected_sock_puppets/Henchman_2000 determined Bowsy and Henchman use the same computer. The note at the bottom clearly states this: soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community.. I thought I would put this out, since both Henchman and Bowsy have posted here (clearly against the note at the case, which I'm sure they've read in the past). RobJ1981 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for closing admin: Please read this VEEERY carefully before taking the above comment on board paying particular attention to the bolded areas:"Based on what I saw on the talkpage here I wanted to clarify something. There was a sockpuppet case which I closed with the finding that they were probably not puppets.  and  are free to participate in the same AfD's and talkpage discussions.  If they want to have the same position on something, that is fine.  As I said in my closing notes, they need to be careful because 'soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community'.  That was an opinion on my part that such actions may induce a closing admin to ignore one of their !votes at discretion.  It was not permission to harass them for participating in the same AfDs.  Unless they are actively working in tandem to circumvent WP:3RR though, I don't think the accusations of puppetry are warrented."
 * Comment: I would like to point out that wikipedia operates on a "one person, one vote" and not a "one computer, one vote" basis. Bowsy (review me!) 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only reason Mario Party 8 minigames list isn't a game guide yet, is because the game isn't out yet. Look at the lists for 6 and 7: they clearly tell you how to play each game. That's game guide content not suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into main article. Classic example of "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs". --- RockMFR 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this is nothing like gamefaqs, this is merely a list of the minigames we know about in MP8. If there were something like "When trying to cross the tightrope, the player should lay his wiimote down on the ground, because then you'll stay balanced and win every time" That would be a gamefaq. This information is encyclopedic. McKay 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, Gamefaqs isn't just a strategy guide website. If you ever take a look at the in-depth FAQs, there are detailed articles about the game.
 * Example: here
 * While it does contain strategy information, that's not all it consists of. Another example might be something like ::this. While not Mario Party related, it does illustrate that it doesn't have to be strategy related to be included on Gamefaqs, and just because it doesn't discuss game strategy doesn't mean it isn't information better handled by other sites. Gene S. Poole  04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, the two other articles have been tacked onto the AFD. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Listcruft in all forms should be burninated*, and now, before it devolves into a game guide like the others. */homestar - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WHAT?!?!? The policies posted on WP:DELETE clearly state that if an article *could* be cleaned up, that it should be cleaned up, and not deleted. The principle here, is that if an article isn't encyclopedic, but could be, then vote "keep" and fix it. If you don't want to fix it yourself, that doesn't mean that you should vote delete, just let someone else fix it. If it's unfixable, that's what the delete is for. I can understand people who make this mistake, it's a rather common one. You on the other hand have made the opposite mistake, saying, in essence "well, it's encyclopedic now, but it's likely going to fall into ruin, so we may as well delete it now." this is the WRONG approach. The correct approach is to vote keep, and fix the other articles (for MP6,7...), because obviously they can be encyclopedic. McKay 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Listcruft by it's very nature is unencyclopedic. These things can never be un encyclopedic, which is exactly the reason that AfD exists, to get rid of articles such as these. And please dont come to my talkpage to tell me I need to retract my vote, its an incredibly sophomoric thing to do. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although, to add, thanks for the steamroom, edit, you did that part wonderfully, exactly what its meant for :) - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no wikipedia policy or guideline that says listcruft should be deleted. In fact, there's an entire List guideline page on how lists should be used (WP:LIST). Furthermore, there is no inclusion criteria for lists except for the regular WP:NOTABLE guidelines, which this article clearly passes. In addition, Lists (stand-alone lists) clearly states "The potential for creating lists is infinite." though it does mention how useful lists are if too large, and it counsels that many wikipedians feel that some topics are unappropriate because of their unencyclopedic nature. Oh, and me asking you to retract your vote is not sophomoric. Sophomoric would have been to change your vote. I'm merely stating that you have no ground to stand on, so your vote should probably be changed (or overlooked by the administrators) McKay 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disagree. WP:NOTABLE states "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". Please, enlighten me, tell me where the minigames from the Mario Party series are the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. I agree, the games deserve the article, as they are the subject of such published works; the minigames of such games are not.
 * These lists, frankly, are unencyclopedic, and they contribute nothing to Wikipedia. Simply noting the names of the minigames contributes nothing; indeed the only person such a list would be of interest to would be someone who has already played the game and knows about the minigames; and adding descriptions of all the minigames makes such a list far too similar to an instruction manual. Witness for clarification; although it's for the Mario Party-e, it has the exact same sort of information, and it's an instruction manual. This stuff isn't needed on Wikipedia. IMHO. YMMV. Gene S. Poole  05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the manual you linked is specifically a how-to manual "press button b at such and such a time...". McKay 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an instruction manual which has descriptions of all the mini games. it does say how to do the minigames, and also has descriptions (i.e. Mario must catch the fish that princess peach requests without touching the wrong fish) which is essentially what we're looking at in the article. We have lists of the games, before the minigames were removed, we had descriptions of what the games were. That is what appears in your average video game manual, and as such falls within WP:NOT  - see instruction manuals in the link I provided above Gene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * not an indirect treatement, it almost appears as if the writer seems to think that the minigames are all the game is about videos: minigame, minigame, minigame, character selection, minigame, minigame (not an indirect treatment It seems to me like in a minigames game, the minigames themselves are notable, just like in the Harry Potter series, not much is written about the characters, yet Notability (fiction) says we should get articles on people like Ron Weasley and even Gregory Goyle. Also, we have List of characters in the Harry Potter books and even crazy lists like Students in Harry Potter's Year, Minor Slytherins, and Inquisitorial Squad. Really, are there any articles that even mention "Minor Slytherins"? No. Yet there's a list. We have hundreds of articles that give a direct treatment on the topic of the minigames in MP8. Notable? YES. McKay 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But just because such lists exist is not a reason to propagate the issue. Perhaps the lists mentioned above should not be on wikipedia, either. Consensus can change. As far as I can see the lists in question serve the same purpose as an instruction manual, something that is, in fact, mentioned as part of what wikipedia is not Gene S. Poole  00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion summary:
 * AMask: Listrcruft = deleted. Article fine now, but could get worse.
 * McKay: what's your problem if it's fine now?
 * AMask: listrcuft = unencyclopedic, purpose of AfD destroy stuff like this
 * McKay: Wikipedia policy = lists are good. WP:NOTABLE guidelines apply?
 * Gene: MP8mg = not notable, MP8mg = unencyclopedic because it's like this thing that fails WP:NOT
 * McKay: It's like all these things which are included in WP.
 * McKay: It's nothing like that thing that fails WP:NOT
 * Mask had problems, McKay responded to them, Gene had problems with McKay's responses, McKay responded to them. McKay 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: They are currenty encyclopedic. A game guide tells you the following 3 things: As the list contains only the first point, it is clearly not a gaming guide. Henchman 2000 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. How exactly can they be encyclopedic? I can see the articles going a few ways: game guide/how to play guide (which it leans towards now, Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual or game guide), or just simply a list of mini-games. Both aren't suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how about the way they are now, with a list of games, and information about each game. Maybe more encyclopedic information could be added: like how they relate to previous games in series, how well they are received by players, pop-culture references in the games... I agree that how-to guides on how to play are WP:NOT appropriate, but the list currently doesn't have that, so it is obviously possible for the content to be encyclopedic. If you're worried that the article might turn non-encyclopedic, then watch the article and patrol changes. This is the wikipedia way. McKay 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The object of the game
 * 2) THe controls of the game
 * 3) Advice on how to win.
 * From Game guide:
 * The contents of a strategy guide varies from game genre to another. Typically, the guides contain:


 * detailed gameplay information, for example, maneuvers that are not detailed in the manual
 * not in the List of Mario Party 8 minigames (LMP8mg)
 * complete maps of the game, which show the placement of all items (including hidden and hard-to-find ones)
 * not in the LMP8mg
 * detailed instructions for specific locations on how to proceed from there
 * not in the LMP8mg
 * explanations of puzzles
 * not in the LMP8mg
 * details of enemies, including techniques on defeating individual enemies (especially "boss" monsters)
 * not in the LMP8mg
 * checklist of collectible items
 * not in the LMP8mg
 * cheats and game editing, although this has been less common in official guides
 * not in the LMP8mg
 * walkthroughs to help the player complete levels
 * not in the LMP8mg
 * As you can see, the LMP8mg is clearly not a game guide. McKay 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's listcruft leaning towards a game guide. As I've stated before: other mini-game lists have been in AFD and deleted: the most recent Rayman, and the most recent Super Monkey Ball as well. Both of which are mini-game collections (while SMB has a story mode, but it's still alot of mini-games). These precendents are more than enough to determine this another listcruft, much better suited for a gaming wiki. RobJ1981 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: RobJ, there is no such thing as a gaming wiki, and if there is, who cares, two wikis may have the same content and you clearly fail to understand this. Henchman 2000 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: Gene S. Poole, WP:NOT contains nothing against this list. Te closest thing I can find is a how-to guide, which it most certainly is not, see my comment about what a how-to guide really is. Henchman 2000 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: See above. I never stated it was a how to guide, rather closer to things found in an instruction manual, which is also mentioned Gene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Merge to Mario Party 8. The subject is not notable nor broad enough to have an article of its own.--Orthologist 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In accordance with WP:NOT Gene S. Poole  00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, can you be more clear? Do you mean that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? While I agree that it isn't, this article is not a how-to guide. McKay 07:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling it a how-to guide, but it serves the same purpose as an instruction manual, which is also mentioned. Gene S. Poole  00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me be more clear. I think an instruction manual is a how-to guide. I think that "How" is the important word. Wikipedia and most dictionarys seem to agree with this definition. I think that the wikipedia article and the instruction manual serve entirely different purposes. the purpose of the instruction manual is to tell you how to press the buttons to play the game. On a similar note, strategy guides are very similar to instruction manuals. They tell a user how to use the controls to play effectively. The wikipedia article can present encyclopedic information without specifying how. It tells "what"s going on in the game. "what" the minigames look like. If there are current deviations from this, I think that they can be free from "how" and present valuable (non-indiscriminate) information. Be WP:BOLD and fix it. McKay 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is this fancruft, the sourcing absolutely sucks. None of the sources are secondary, YouTube vids are NOT what I call a source. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the sourcing sucks. Be WP:BOLD and fix it. Having bad sources is not a valid reasoning for an AFD. Also, some (most?) of the sources are secondary: marioparty8.net, gametrailers.com, jeux-france.com, are all secondary sources. McKay 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Those of us blessed with children, in any school, in any place in this world, know full well that this topic deserves a large and bright spot... in any encyclopedia. We have an obligation, in my opinion, to provide the world with current reliable information. If we lose the children, we lose the world. Help to make this institution more reliable for our schools? Sounds like a good idea to me. Thank you for your time.Lee Nysted 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP The entire topic (GAMES) should be expanded and backed up with strong and reliable sources. This is the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. It is about "time."
 * Comment. It should be noted Lee seems to have voted because he thinks Guy doesn't like him. The proof is here: []. Voting doesn't work like that. RobJ1981 23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My vote is my vote; should be taken with what I said. My vote stands. I mean what I say, and I say what I believe to be true. Please try to use good faith at Wikipedia. Thank you.Lee Nysted 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rob, this comment is somewhat inappropriate, first off, your "proof" isn't proof at all, it's not even circumstantial. Also, it's an ad hominiem attack. He presents points for his reasoning, if you want to attack the comment, you should attack those points. Also, his suggesstion of WP:AGF is a good one. McKay 06:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I dont think it was a bad idea for that point, I don't really think its strong enough to discount the vote, unlike the 2 meatpuppets up above, where one or both will be stricken from the final decision. Also, I was somewhat amused to literally see a "Think of the children!" argument. That will most likely not count as a real, WP-specific argument against deletion, but gave me my evening entertainment nonetheless. Thank you! - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 07:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not call Bowsy and Henchman meatpuppets. If you really think they are, start another sockpuppet case. However, do not directly say that they are meatpuppets unless the case is closed with that result. –Llama mantalkcontribs 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy is perfectly clear, they share the same computer, and there is doubt about whether they are one user or two seperate, regardless ofthat, they espouse the same views, and per WP:SOCK they can be assumed to be one person. I can refer to them as sockpuppets if you wish. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]]
 * Comment: We are not meatpuppets. How many times must you be told this for you to relise? Above, there is proof by Isotope, Llama man. I am also going to give you this source. Pay heed to it or you may find a similar message on your talk page. Henchman 2000 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry AKMask, according to WP ruling, they are not sockpuppets. Also, according to WP:SOCK, Calling them meatpuppets is definitely a bit of a grey area, as they are not strictly single-purpose users. Both of them have hundreds of edits, and they are contributing in at least two disparate areas ( Wii games Mario Party games video games, and Spongebob). They may have interest in WP as a whole, but are only capable of editing in those two areas. I'm not sure, but to be on the safe side, you probably shouldn't be calling them meatpuppets. McKay 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Might want to reread the sock finding page, chief, specifically the part that says both need to be careful about meatpuppetry; soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community. Both of you need to keep that in mind.. They have not taken this advice to heart, and are now clearly meatpuppets. Those 2 and puppets and I claim my five pounds. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC). - M ask  [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Knock it off, both of you. The closing admin will decide how much weight he or she wants to give the opinions from  and  as well as everyone else who participated here.  Hurling accusations and labels will not change that.  Please remain respectful and WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment about the kind comments:

I must explain, if you can please excuse my use of your time; forgive my ignorance of much of the topic material itself?

I am a single father of 3 girls. (ages 11. 15. and 23.) I love Wikipedia; use it all the time. My children cannot use Wikipedia (as a factual reference) in our school system in Illinois, more often than not, because of either, I mention " the children" because it is timely to consider that most companies with a vision for the future, plan for repeat users well into the next generation, or more. (e.g., I cite Apple, Inc. as a primary example of this.)
 * 1) Lack of pertinent (up to date) content, or
 * 2) lack of reliable sources, or most unfortunate,
 * 3) The ability of vandals to change the truth, at will.

Thank you for your time.Lee Nysted 15:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you don't think he's some guy whose reasons for Wikipedia don't matter to wikipedia, I'll note that his first point falls under "Wikipedia is not a Paper encyclopedia" our information can be up to date, and can fill niches that paper encyclopedias can't (like thousands of articles in Harry Potter categories)
 * Lack of sources falls under one of the WP trifecta WP:VERIFY.
 * and the third point falls under WP:VANDALISM.
 * So, his reasons are valid. McKay 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not plan for the next generation of users. We plan to be an encyclopedia of non-trivial, previously published material. Multiple, reliable, non-trivial works must be published on a subject for it to be included. It's nice you have kids you care about, but frankly, it doesn't matter in the context of Wikipedia. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My final comment to AKMask: Thank you. You just gave the most salient, transparent, and powerful reason on earth, why, the above article should stay, here today. Good for you. Cheers!Lee Nysted 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * AKMask, his reasons are your reasons. I thought I made that clear in my post. If you're going to make logical progress, you're going to have to attack the issues of WP:NOTE and WP:RS (and "Encyclopedic" like others are doing to varying degrees of failure) Not just say "IT'S GOT TO BE NOTABLE!!!!!" We all know that it has to be notable, you've got to show that our efforts of showing that it is notable are fallacious. Also, I fear that Lee has left wikipedia because of this argument. His last post seemed so ... final. McKay 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[reindent]
 * Or, you know, I could just point out that we should follow the policy. Or attack it, as you suggest I do. I prefer my way better, the "we should have encyclopedic content as per policy" way, as I call it. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 16:36, 26 February 2007 (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.