Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding


 * 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. Keep arguments are in the main from unregistered users, users with very few edits and unregistered users masquerading as accounts via fake signatures, while the arguments for deletion are very well grounded in No original research. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding
wow this is bullshit. People like you are eventually going to run down wikipedia's ubiquity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.64.90 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole modus operandi of the page seems to be for the editors to check these games in their Xboxen, then update the chart accordingly. That's clearly orginal research. Ace of Sevens 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Keep i like to check this list every other day or so!!!! KEEP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.234.228 (talk • contribs). en·cy·clo·pe·di·a (n-skl-pd-) n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
 * Keep. This is an extremely important catalog of information regarding Xbox 360 games. I see no reason for it to be deleted. 72.177.178.193 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Ericco
 * Keep. Of course keep the page. What´s going on with wikipedia - on a deletion rush??? I need this page permanently ... Joblack 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a person, who owns a Xbox 360 NTSC/U console on a PAL region (Finland) I really have use for this page, as the page helps me to make purchaces, and be confident, that the games I buy (while working for minimum wage) do NOT go to waste. Guest 12:15 31 July (GMT +2:00)
 * Keep. WHat are you guys saying? why would you want to delete this? I access this page almost everyday! KEEP! If you dont have a use for it randy wang, maybe it's time you thought about the other people that HAVE a use for it! GUest 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang ( raves/review me! ) 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not at all encyclopedic (do we really need this article?), in addition to concerns regarding original research. RandyWang ( raves/review me! ) 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure this is really a necessary article either, but I wanted to mention that the primary external sources are 2 links to a forum (very bad) and one link to an online retailer (semi-legit). This is probably more appropriate on a gaming wiki such as egamia. --SevereTireDamage 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. Combination 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Skinmeister 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote. You have to explain why to have any influence. Ace of Sevens 15:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, goto another personal site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.21.170 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. If they are testing the games and seeing if they work on different machines, they are compiling information into a useful format from primary sources.  This is not original research within the meaning of the policy. (. . . (R)esearch that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.)  The article could use more context and background, but I'm not convinced that the information is useless, or that it is original research.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue of it being useless. I've watched this for a few weeks and there are frequently nos changed to yeses and vice versa.  Due to the lack of easy availabilty of the primary sources, this isn't easily verifiable and there's no way to ensure accuracy. Ace of Sevens 18:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. By Smerdis of Tlön's reasoning, nothing would count as original research.  --Geoffrey Spear 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's saying that OR only applies to opinions and conclusions, not raw data. Reading the policy, that appears to be correct.  However, I thinkt ehre are plenty of other reason for deletion. Ace of Sevens 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that editors trying different games in different machines is qualitatively different than collecting information from existing primary sources. If the games themselves were labeled by their manufacturers as having no region encoding, I'd agree that this falls under the above-quoted part of the policy. --Geoffrey Spear 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Nova Prime 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I use this list all the time, it really is usfull information for 360 owners.--DELTAsnake 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the above is the only edit by this user.--Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very comprehensive listing here that is constantly being updated. I refer to this list as the authority on cross region operability. --MortimerSmythe 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia shouldn't be the authority on anything. That's pretty much the opposite of references. Ace of Sevens 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- The above "vote" was made by User:83.146.13.253. There is no user named "MortimerSmythe". --Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this list is quite usefull. You should keep it definitely. --bigdrbrain 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above "vote" was made by User:84.173.249.171, and is the only edit made by that IP address. There is no user named "bigdrbrain". --Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the sources appears to be a fourm, which would constitute WP:OR. Otherwise, WP:NOT a collection of indistriminate info. -Royalguard11Talk 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The information may be useful to somebody, but whatever else Wikipedia is not, I'm pretty sure it's not Consumer Reports. Unencyclopedic. --Stellmach 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the keep votes seem to be saying to keep because it's useful. I think this is true so far as the information is accurate (which I have doubts about).  However, plenty of things are useful without belonging in an encyclopedia.  Can anyone explain how this is encyclopedic? Ace of Sevens 12:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't List of Region Free Xbox Games be considered for deletion too? It's basically the same thing AStaralfur 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant policy violation. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see how the nom's assertion is original research. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep not encyclopedic?

this is just that, whats not encyclopedic about it? if wikipedia starts deleting things like this that i reference daily then to he!! with wikipedia i say.


 * Keep Useful information, we have lists of other things, and I see nothing wrong with this list. Havok (T/C/c) 15:58, 5 August 2006 (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.