Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Simple series video 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 delete.  Sandstein  07:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Simple series video games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I redirected it, but it was restored. A long, 90K list of video games, released under the name of the Simple (video game series) name. But it's not a series like in a particular intellectual property or franchise, the Simple series is a line of budget titles by D3 Publisher, with different developers, different styles of gameplay and released for different platforms.

To me, it's WP:NOTCATALOG and/or WP:GAMETRIVIA. Most of these games, as they're run-of-the-mill budget titles, did not get much or any coverage by WP:VG/RS and just a fraction here are wikilinked. There's no relevant information about what games they are, how they were received, etc. It's completely unsourced right now; looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get some mentions of the more popular games, but not about every entry ever. Delete and redirect to Simple (video game series), where the most successful games can be mentioned. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a distinction of kind between this article and well-established articles like (for example) List of Capcom games or List of Game Boy games, neither of which include the kind of contextualizing information that Soetermans is claiming is required. If you want to argue notability of the topic itself, it's already covered by Simple (video game series), with multiple sources in that article that provide ample evidence of notability. Goldenband (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC) And remember, we're talking about a list, which clearly has criteria that are distinct from an ordinary article; in general, precedent seems to be that a list of works of a notable entity is itself deserving of inclusion as long as some of the individual works are notable, which is the case here. Goldenband (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC) WP:V seems to be the real issue here, and I've agreed with User:ferret that it needs to be addressed. But neither I nor anyone else want to waste their time meticulously referencing each entry in this article without assurances that the same standard will be applied to this list as to other, established lists of works from notable entities. Goldenband (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I agree, however, that WP:V is a salient issue, though the vast majority of the article could easily be accounted for if PlayStation Datacenter is considered a reliable source (I can't find any WP policies specific to that site). Goldenband (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Video games are not my topic, but wouldn’t a list of published games be self-verifying in the same way that a list of published books is? A work of any kind is a reliable source for its own content, it’s only when facts outside the work’s “four corners” or interpretations are asserted that secondary sources are required for verification. No opinion offered on notability. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I don't see the relevance of WP:NOTCATALOGUE here at all -- the linked page makes it quite clear that "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic".
 * Delete - This comes off as WP:NOTCATALOGUE to me, despite the comments made by other people here. The Simple series has gone through the hands of many developers, many genres, and many platforms, so this list of hundreds upon hundreds of games is already absurdly difficult to maintain and fix. Lots of these games I couldn't even find basic information on in Google, especially from reliable sources, so what reason is there to keep this gigantic (and I do mean gigantic, the thing is 90K) list where half the entries can't even be sourced? Most sources I've seen for these games talk about the Simple franchise itself or some of the more noteworthy games (like Maid Outfit and Machine Gun and the Earth Defense Force series), so info on these smaller releases, if any can be found, can just be added to the series article. This kind of material is best-suited for sites like MobyGames and not Wikipedia. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 22:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sincere question: what do you see as the difference between this article and, for example, List of Game Boy games? Both are gigantic, and both have numerous entries that in and of themselves are not notable -- and that seems to me an intrinsic part of listing the works of any notable entity, which will invariably produce both notable and non-notable works. (Plenty of filmographies include non-notable films, for example, as do authors' lists of works.) Goldenband (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the entries included in the Game Boy list are notable and have their own article, which is why we have a list to begin with. What do you mean "and both have numerous entries that in and of themselves are not notable"? Both your argument and comparison are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which in no way applies to this list page and this discussion. There isn't any useful information here that can be transferred to the Simple article, and a redirect isn't plausable considering the obscurity of this outside Japan, so I find deletion the only outcome here. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 15:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, look at List of PlayStation games (A–L) and List of PlayStation games (M–Z) for examples of gigantic lists full of non-notable and redlinked games alongside notable games. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is extremely clear that comparisons to other articles can be highly relevant: "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." It's absolutely relevant that there are numerous established articles that have the exact traits you described earlier, i.e. lists that include "hundreds upon hundreds of games" and "many developers, many genres, and many platforms". If those traits are shared by an article that's considered acceptable and one that's not, then they can't be the core issue here.
 * And by the way, I cite "precedent" because, for the record, most of the established video game lists by console or publisher fail the "Common Selection Criteria" in WP:SAL, largely through sheer size (i.e. the lists are over 32K). But Manual of Style/Lists of works makes it quite clear that "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles."
 * Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, per Soetermans and Namcokid. AFD is about notability, but WP:V is not optional either, and the list is fully of entries that cannot be verified with reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The effort could be put in to include reliable sources, but (1) it'd be good to have a hard percentage on what number of entries would be needed in order for this article to escape deletion, and (2) neither I nor anyone else would want to put that effort in, only to have the article deleted on other grounds (e.g. notability). Could you specify, i.e. quote, the exact part of WP:NOTCATALOGUE that you believe applies here? I'm genuinely not seeing applicable language on that page.
 * PlayStation Datacenter is a fansite that doesn't have any credibility or editorial oversight from reliable journalists within the industry. So, no, it should not be used for this article, and it should also be cut from any and all other similar articles. I don't know why you insist it be used when it clearly should not, you're again going by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it doesn't apply here. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't editorialize by claiming I "insist it be used" when I did no such thing. Goldenband (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See this. I was originally planning to post it here but I instead decided to take it here. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 18:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The question of whether the information in question is available at PSXDatacenter (which it is) is entirely distinct from whether that site is a reliable source. I made no claims about whether the source was reliable in that discussion, and specifically raised the issue of reliability in this thread because I wanted an answer. That is a very far cry from "insisting that [something] be used", and I ask that you retract your statement. Goldenband (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Postdlf -- I was having a similar thought, which you've articulated perfectly. Is there a Wikipedia policy that makes this distinction, i.e. between simple lists of published works (no pun intended) and other sources that require more stringent standards for verification? Goldenband (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2020 (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.