Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PS2 DVD9 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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Four options are on the table, keep as is, merge with a more general list, convert into a category, or just delete. Merging into a more general list probably means annotating the entries which use the DVD-9 format (and I cannot be bothered to do that now, but if anyone thinks that is a good idea, go ahead). Conversion to category would mean losing the redlinked entries until we get articles on them. With no consensus for any of the four options, I will default this to the outright "keep" result without prejudice against a relisting later. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

List of PS2 DVD9 Games
Listcruft Computerjoe 's talk 07:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand on my nomination, I'm going to quote Listcruft as my grounds for deletion The list is of interest to a very limited number of people. Computerjoe 's talk 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Either delete or change into a category or something :P —porges(talk) 07:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 12:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep might help somebody 63.173.47.193 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon user. Computerjoe 's talk 16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. I can't imagine who, if anyone, this list could possibly help. -- Kicking222 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A silly and useless list. Thunderbrand 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Beno1000 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as prime listcruft -- Hirudo 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games into one list of PS2 games. -- Hirudo 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP I know of many people whom this list would help! Read the updated/expanded list introduction to see why it is relevant. This info is made more useful because PS2 games disk formats are NEVER provided by Sony or the game makers (though CD-based games can USUALLY be identified in stores since they often display the special CD logo on back). PS2 lasers are by far the most common failure on the system. Since the dense DVD-9 format requires dual-layer focusing and has only been in use since 2003, these disks have common read errors when switching layers.  This list is a great complement to the extensive PS2 CD-ROM game list created 6 months ago List_of_PlayStation_2_CD-ROM_games -- Rory77 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace. Computerjoe 's talk 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm feeling inclined to put List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games mentioned above up for Afd as well if this one results in deletion, unless anyone sees any additional value in that list -- Hirudo 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Might as well. I never look at it. Thunderbrand 01:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ???!??!! I never look at 99.9% of articles! Pcb21 Pete 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bloated Response This is not useless information, but I can see I won't convince any of you serial-information-destroyers of this. The fact that we have a 20 year old admin commenting on this list means I'm 99% sure you will delete this list and probably the other (CD-ROM) list I mentioned above. I knew full well your deletion fetish may lead to the CD-ROM list being axed as well, but risked it to provide you with more info. The PS2 is one of the only systems in history where games have confusingly been released in more than one medium. Additionally, there are VERY FEW conceivable high-level/obvious lists or classifications for PS2 games, but among them would be such things as genre (there are many pages for game genres that list game examples for each system), developer, release year, networkability, and disk media. There are currently 2 lists for PS2 networked games. You guys better delete both of them while you are at it too. Since none of YOU have ever looked at these lists before, I'm sure that means they are useless information. Seriously, a list only takes a few kilobytes on the Wiki-drive and each of these lists I mentioned are NEARLY COMPLETE (I personally flagged both lists as "incomplete" to encourage users to update them and not take them as 100% definititive). The lists don't even show up on the Wikipedia search listing yet, so please allow users some time to find and utilize them before they are deleted as cruft. Please re-consider your actions. -- Rory77 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This list belongs on a PS2 fansite, not on Wikipedia. Especially the DVD9 and CD-ROM part of it. You may be able to find more support for just a general list of PS2 games (which could then have DVD9/CD-ROM annotations), but personally I don't think we need one of those either -- Hirudo 14:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to make a comment, but I agree with what Hirudo said above. Thunderbrand 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think those voting delete have presenting their arguments very poorly. Saying "listcruft" is not enough. The content is clearly useful to some people and should be merged into the broader article. Pcb21 Pete 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Useful is not enough to be worth a Wikipedia article. A lot of the things in WP:NOT are useful to plenty of people. -- Hirudo 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So why should we expunge this content from Wikipedia? Pcb21 Pete 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion because it's just not important enough (especially the distinct DVD9/CD-ROM lists, as stated above). -- Hirudo 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Importance is in the eye of the beholder. Would you support my idea of merging, so that the merged article has a "critical mass" of importance. It'd be sad to lose verifiable information like this. Pcb21 Pete 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct about eye of the beholder. I see that enough people seem to care about this, so I'll be happy enough if you can merge the two media lists into one. -- Hirudo 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it the redirect page that is up for deletion, the page that is referenced redirect to a different titled page. I would say to keep as it the list has a clear purpose and scope. Ans  e  ll  09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with List_of_PlayStation_2_CD-ROM_games into another PS/2 article or transwiki or something. Don't just delete it because you don't like it. It's useful and IMO quite encyclopedic, based on what Rory77 has said above. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment IMO, listcruft is not uncivil despite claims made on my talk page. However, AFD is not the place to discuss civility - if you wish to discuss the civility of my nominations please use my talk page. Thank you. Computerjoe 's talk 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious KEEP. There is nothing in this article (or list) that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. "Listcruft" is a lame attempt to circumvent the need of presenting any real argument for deletion. "Not important" is a dubious claim, as the material on this list probably has vastly greater influence on today's society than, say, Bertrada of Laon (just a random example). – Timwi 16:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Convert to category. This sort of thing is exactly what categories are intended for; lists aren't supposed to have minimal entries like this. --maru  (talk)  contribs 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn listcruft. Eusebeus 22:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Convert to category. Does not present much scope for additional structuring, so a category is better than a list. Loom91 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Firstly read Listcruft again: the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor, which means that almost all of the "delete" votes above fail this test; I would remind you furthermore that Listcruft is not policy or even a guideline, it is a personal essay. Second, the calls to convert the list into a Category miss the major differences between categories and lists: the former are not capable of referencing yet-to-be-written articles, which the latter can accommodate in addition to further annotation which increases value. I call upon the closing admin to take these points into serious consideration when evaluating the votes above. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keeping this list would open the door for things like List of G-rated PC Games on 3" disks, List of R-rated PC Games release on both 3" and 5" disks etc. (And yes I'm obviously exaggerating of course). Since enough people seem to want a list of games (though I still don't understand why), I've changed my vote to merge the DVD9 and CDROM lists. Can I convince you to do the same ? -- Hirudo 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment: that might be a possible compromise, although I would be more inclined to support this proposal if it went further. From a quick perusal of the various lists on offer, it would appear that unifying the various "by format" lists into List of PlayStation 2 games, adding much annotation as to format/networking/etc, accompanied by splitting that list into sub-lists by initial letter (List of PlayStation 2 games: A, etc) would be the best long-run solution which subsumes all other possibilities. In the even-longer-term, this is a possible application for wikidata or something similar. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of PlayStation 2 games per Phil above, and/or convert to category. Both would be fine.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Technical information on gaming formats and hardware of the present day, becomes useful for hobbyists, collectors and enthusiasts for decades to come! 21:34, 29th September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I spent 1 hour looking for solutions online, and this would only take me 3 minutes, as much as it is informational, it appeals to hobbyists so it is not a waste of space. 00:00, 3 June 2011(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.