Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cel-shaded 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   Keep. No valid argument for deletion has been advanced in the discussion below. Existence of a category does not preclude existence of a list.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of cel-shaded video games

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is already a category, Category:Video games with cel-shaded graphics, that does the job better than this list. The list doesn't have anything special and there is no other list of games by graphic style. It's also a list that is impossible to complete and would thus be better as a category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Category is fine, no need for a list. --M ASEM  (t) 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- No reason a category and a list can't co-exist. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Notable and there is no reason for this to be deleted because of a category and seems up to date. C'mon guys.  I Smashed   TALK!  19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list contains little other information than basic game details, making it largely redundant to the category, and, moreover, is all original research. It would be far easier to use categories for this purpose than such an out-of-the-way list, especially considering the citations needed to back up the claims of cel-shading would already be in the respective articles rather than duplicated in the list itself. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant list. Category covers same material more efficiently. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. This is simply an incomplete duplication of what already exists. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – I have improved the list by making it sortable (see ), filling in all the dates and publshers in the entries, removed unverifiable ones, and did some general cleanup ( and ). MuZemike 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm still doubtful about its verifiability as opposed to the use of categories. The article is linked to from very few other articles, and I just see it as inevitable that this is going to slip out of line with the articles it covers and the category over time. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lists and categories work in conjunction. Also, good work MuZemike on the sortable list. Marasmusine (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's its sourcing, though? Sure, lists and categories can work in conjunction, but only if the information presented by them is backed up by reliable sources. This list completely lacks such sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want every single item in this list to have a citation, then that can be done. Presumably you would like all games that cannot be sourced in this way to be removed from the list and the category, even if it is obviously cell-shaded. (Sorry if that sounded snide, no offence intended.) Marasmusine (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I've had to think about this, but when it boils down to it the whole idea of offering all cel-shaded games as a group is pretty trivial IMO. As a category that's fine, low maintainence and easy to use, but this list is not offering anything more despite containing extra data fields and requiring work to patch up. Where the style originated from in gaming can be covered in the cel-shading article in as much depth as necessary, apart from that one cel-shaded game is the same as the next, cel-shaded, it's not like we're talking 'World War I in video games' or something which would benefit from a list containg more data. Someoneanother 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a working, objective definition of "cel-shading" that does not boil down to "I know it when I see it?" (this includes reviews et al referring to the graphics as such) Nifboy (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question, not that I've seen. Someoneanother 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The category is primarily for behind-the-scenes work, the list is for the reader. They're not redundant. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm aware that Categorization says categories are for navigation; but in reality, what kind of casual reader knows what a category is and how to use it? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:03, 17 April 2009 (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.