Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer and video game hoaxes


 * 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 - for now, with most of the basis for keeping being that it's new at the moment. Next time this goes to AfD, it will have to be fully verified and otherwise policy-compliant if it is to be kept. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

List of computer and video game hoaxes

 * Delete: This article is unreferenced and can quickly get out of hand if developed. It is about a trivial concept and is not at all encyclopedia-worthy considering all the hoaxes were made up.--Zxcvbnm 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with respective game articles if there is any new referenced content. If not, delete. --- RockMFR 05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Need I direct you to list of hoaxes? Many articles are unstable, the only reason that it's unreferenced and unfinished is because it's recent and I haven't finished it. I didn't leave the development tag up, because I wanted others to contribute knowing there wouldn't be edit conflicts. This is information that people are interested in - more so than a lot of other lists on Wikipedia. and just because fake hoaxes (fake hoax, seems a bit silly to say huh?) may be posted doesn't mean it's unstable. I will begin to add references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with individual game articles. The list is far too broad.  --humblefool&reg; 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * List of hoaxes is far more vague. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 09:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, too trivial and game-specific information, gamecruft. J I P  | Talk 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's only a week old, give the editor/s time to get it up to scratch. Failing that, merge referenced information to the respective articles. SteveLamacq43 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a week old. Give it some time. CraigMonroe 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - A well written, well sourced list of this sort is quite useful as a research tool (which is what Wikipedia is mainly used for). Rather than deleting it, we should help the author improve it. →Bobby ← 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * weak delete, this is looking awful indiscriminate because it has no criteria for inclusion. Do we just include everything someone ever made up about a video game? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, gamecruft, too much trivia for an encyclopedia. --Ter e nce Ong (C 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Currently it's a bit of a mess, I'll grant you, but it's potentially valuable and very early on in its life-cycle. If it still looks like this in a month or three, re-nominate it. -Toptomcat 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing from merge/delete - let's give it some time and see how it turns out. --- RockMFR 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a very new article. Give it some time. (echoing above) --Fang Aili talk 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Give it a chance to develop for a couple of weeks scope_creep 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep just like List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming all this article needs is to be scrutinized as content is added. As long as every entry is provided with at least one reference to a reliable sources(no fan forum/website speculation, only notable reliable gaming press), I do not see this article failing WP:V. —Mitaphane talk 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. But it does need the work done. Robovski 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Trivial gamecruft/listcruft. And these are better described as rumours rather than hoaxes Bwithh 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur with the "Review in a month's time" approach. This needs sources, but it would be a useful article that will cut down on gamecruft entries in the main hoax listings. -- Simon Cursitor 08:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly, delete SYSS Mouse 01:58, 10 November 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.