Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer 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. — Kurykh  16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection, where most entries merely consist of "wisps are an enemy/ally/monster in this game" Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The nominator seems to be under the impression that getting rid of the list will get rid of the listcruft. I know from personal experience that this is not the case. To date, the vast majority of recent additions to any and all will-o-the-wisp related articles have been video game mentions. What will happen if this article disappears is that the hundreds of anonymous users who added random info from their favourite computer games will simply reinstate it willy-nilly all over Wikipedia, spreading their "cruft" across dozens of articles. Cries of Wikipedia being a self-correcting mechanism ring hollow in this case. I also know from personal experience that this "cruft" remained undeleted for months until I came along and actually did something about it. I also know that removing it makes no difference, as it simply reappears (within hours) anyway. Unless you want to spend the rest of your natural life playing whack-a-mole with useless trivia, let this article live. It's the sanest solution. Serendipodous 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Better here than there" doesn't work as an argument. I've add the wisp article to my watchlist, and will personally take care to ensure it remains clean. Further, even if there's a so-called lint filter article, people will still add references to the main article periodically. I've seen it happen. --Eyrian 17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll also have to watch the will-o-the-wisp disambig page. It seems you also want to delete the Will o the wisps in popular culture article. Since I've created those two articles, the number of random video-game-themed insertions has fallen drastically. I have no idea what will happen if they're removed. If you truly want to take on this job, you're welcome. Serendipodous 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the dab, and cleaned it up a little. --Eyrian 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This crusade is just as silly as trying to keep an encyclopedia "clean" by deleting entries on genitalia. Digwuren 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, actually, there's no comparison whatsoever, as one concerns censorship and the other notability. You might as well rename this article 'List of just about every RPG video game in existence', as it is an incredibly common feature.  Delete this article as non-notable. If there is a sourced and well written article (not a list) on the Will-O-Whisp legend in art, literature, or entertainment, feel free to write it.  CaveatLectorTalk 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Without having had any discussion on the notability of the said article, it would be rather silly to promptly delete it on the basis of notability. The will-o'-the-wisp is clearly notable, and computer games are a common medium in which it is frequently found. --XDanielx 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, so let's put a sentence in the will-o'-the-wisp article that says 'will-o'-wisps are commonly found in computer games' and source it. Why in the world is it necessary to list every instance of this creature in video games? CaveatLectorTalk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I call foul on WP:AGF here. If this were WP:POINT the nominators would be saying that 'all pop culture articles are evil' or only nominating 'pop culture' articles.  These editors are well respected, veteran members of the wiki community, and it is simply shameful to say that, just because some of the articles that they feel merit deletion are of a certain type that they somehow have an agenda against them. CaveatLectorTalk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, WP:NOT When we start having spin-off articles from IPC articles like this they have be stopped. It makes even bad IPC articles appear encyclopedic by comparison.Crazysuit 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree with Mathmo that Eyrian's "crusade" involves many dubious and little-thought-out nominations, and may possibly be connected to WP:POINT (note the qualification). Still, I think the article does seem to have next-to-nothing potential in the way of providing valuable or even amusing information to readers and hence can be deleted as per WP:SENSE. The problem Serendipodous brings up can easily be mitigated by semiprotecting the article. --XDanielx 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's exhausting having to deal with so many IPC nominations in one day, since each article has to be judged on its merit. I'd prefer if we limited this to five or so every day.  This one seems fairly obscure-- a will o the wisp is essentially a speck of light for computer game purposes, one of the less complex graphics to design. Mandsford 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original synthesis of material with no secondary sources establishing either weight or notability and&mdash;oh yeah&mdash;no sources at all period. Cool Hand Luke 08:15, 6 August 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.