Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional electronic games (2nd nomination)


 * 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 d e lete; none of the concerns in the various rationales for deletion were satisfactorily refuted. east. 718 at 20:25, December 21, 2007

List of fictional electronic games
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a perpetually incomplete list of fictional video games that have appeared in various places; the idea of listing something so insignificant (and mostly without sources) violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a loosely connected list of very minor topics, most of which don't even have their own articles (as they would not be notable outside whatever they appeared in). Core desat 06:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment what is your rational for revisting this AfD? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been a year and a half since the previous AFD, and the article violates policy. --Core desat 06:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:L. I dispute several parts of the nominator's rationale. First, these topics are not loosely connected. In fact, the items of this list are connected by the only thing there is to them: being fictional games.
 * 1) Having an article is not a requirement for appearing on a list.
 * 2) Being independently notable is not a requirement for appearing on a list.
 * 3) Being (able to be) complete is not a requirement for any list.
 * This list is valid as a collection of plot elements from various very large and notable sources, and is relevant to the discussion of fiction in general. User:Krator (t c) 09:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:L is simply a guideline on how to write lists; it can't be used to justify keeping one as doing so would justify keeping all lists. The items on this list are woefully non-notable, and the list itself smacks of OR. --Core desat 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No references, original research, unencyclopediac. Ra2007 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Krator. SharkD (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't agree with original research and at least some of the information is encyclopedic, but I think it clearly is at odds with WP:NOT. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . It is not indiscriminate--it contains a list of only those in notable works. Indiscriminate would be a random assortment of all possible fictional games, which is not the case. The judgement of insignificance is the personal opinion of the nominator--as there are sources, that view is not supported.  The contents of a list article are not required to be notable on their own--there is no such guideline or practice.   Very clear keep in the previous afs, and apparently the idea is to continue nominating until deleted. This is a general encyclopedia, and this is a useful list. Useful is a criterion for list articles. DGG (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good argument, I agree. User:Krator (t c) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Usefulness is not a criterion for lists (unless that has changed, but unless you can show me where it has, that argument is simply WP:USEFUL), and there has only been one previous AFD. This is an unencyclopedic directory of loosely-connected information. --Core desat 11:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see lists like t his as intended to pro=vide information for browsing wikipedia, being more informative than categories, and WP:USEFUL says specifically "An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." ". Agreed, its only an essay. DGG (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - indiscriminate list seeking to capture every mention of every fictional game, game system, game company, game anything mentioned anywhere in a work of fiction ever. Directory of items which have absolutely no association with each other whatsoever. The passing mention of a non-existent video game does not create any association between the works of fiction which contain the passing mention. "It mentions a fictional video game" is not a theme or motif. For all intents and purposes this amounts to a List of joke video game names and consensus has been fairly strong and consistent that non-notable lists of jokes are not encyclopedic. See for example Articles for deletion/Running gags in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, Articles for deletion/Running gags in Seinfeld, Articles for deletion/Running gags in Friends. Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some users are too damn serious. The article is doing no harm.  Let the kids on Wikipedia have their topics.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM; your argument is not based in policy. --Core desat 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711 and Ra2007 -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:40, 18 December 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.