Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

List of modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article consists entirely of WP:GAMEGUIDE material and WP:LISTN does not appear to be met as no reliable, secondary source ever discusses all "modelled aircraft" in the game as a group (ed: most sources currently used are not reliable). The list might be better suited for FANDOM than Wikipedia. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - 1) Other than a few official announcements taken from the official forum, the dozens of references that support this list come from a rich array of sources not including forums, nor blogs. 2) Both print journalism and digital journalism have shown such a level of interest in this game, now released ten years ago, that the items in the list, these are the aircraft themselves, are regularly treated by the sources (this is self-explanatory : please read the sources). 3) This game, IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover, has been translated into German, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Polish and Czech and is played by a worldwide community. This is why this list is supported by sources in at least five different languages: English, French, Spanish, Czech and German (again, please read the sources). All of this sufficiently proves that the list is with no doubt relevant. In fact, to be honest, very few video game related lists can claim such a level of relevance in this encyclopedia. Kintaro (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The game's notability isn't in question, only that of this list, as the fewest sources are reliable and WP:LISTN does not appear to be met. Most importantly, please review WP:GAMEGUIDE. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My three arguments strictly deal with the list only. Noted now in bold letters so that you get some help when reading my explanations. Kind regards. Kintaro (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You provide arguments why the game is notable but project them onto the notability of the list without respect to WP:LISTN. Furthermore, the least of the sources used are reliable per WP:VG/RS and the gravest concern remains WP:GAMEGUIDE, which the article consists entirely of. As Wikipedia is not designed to host such content, I would suggest transferring the list to Wikia/FANDOM or Gamepedia, which is better suited for such content, so your work is not lost. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You provide arguments why the game is notable. This is not acceptable. We can discuss if wether or not my arguments are suitable, but they deal with the list with no doubt, not with the game. Kintaro (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but IceWielder is correct here. You're not providing a valid argument towards the list articles independent notability, nor are you providing a good counter-argument of GAMECRUFT/GAMEGUIDE/NOT arguments. Sergecross73   msg me  19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, you are missing my point. You're not providing a valid argument towards the list articles independent notability, nor are you providing a good counter-argument of GAMECRUFT/GAMEGUIDE/NOT arguments : this may be true but has nothing to do with You provide arguments why the game is notable. That latter sentence is false and gratuitous. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Say what you will, look at the other comments. You're not convincing anyone else, let alone a consensus in your favor. It's up to you how you want to handle that information. Sergecross73   msg me  00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, apparently the list is about to be deleted... and this is not a tragedy, somebody proposed it for deletion and now we simply follow the usual procedure. What I'm doing, if you simply read my interventions in this page, is responding to one specific wrong statement. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I was being unclear. I meant to say that your central arguments (digital/print journalism for a 10-year-old game, international sources, and a "rich array of sources") do not cover the notability feats required for list articles (per LISTN) but could only pertain to the notability of the game itself (i.e. sustained international coverage of the game = notability). Indeed, some aircraft are discussed individually in some sources (be they reliable or not), but this is not a list notability criterion. Sorry again for the mistunderstanding. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * IceWelder, we don't need the aircraft are discussed individually. Reading the sources you'll notice that some aircraft are discussed while others are simply mentioned as what they are: modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover, which is the more simple requirement for constituting a reliable source in a list-type page in this encyclopedia, provided that the source complies with our policies. I personally checked every source. All sources are reliable as such and mention the affected model, variant or subvariant of every aircraft in the list. I'm discussing quitely and I'll accept whatever decision is taken by the admin who will settle this discussion, but I sincerely think that you, the "delete" voters, are being misleaded in this case. Kintaro (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's three arguments relating to the list. The game article, in contrast, is as stated certainly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The game is certainly notable, which is why we have an article on it. This list, however, is complete WP:GAMEGUIDE material, per the arguments presented in the nomination.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is textbook WP:GAMECRUFT, and that says it shouldn't even be in the game's article, let alone its own article. Sergecross73   msg me  18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Disclosure: I was brought to this via a post made by Kintaro on WT:VG. That said, others have already made strongly persuasive cases and I completely agree with them. This isn't appropriate for a list article. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Textbook example of WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete though I would encourage that some broad overview of the general classes (side/manufacturers/models/classes) of planes can be summarized in the main game article based on the handful of non-first party RSes that are in the list article. (Eg "The game and its extended DLC include over one hundred modelled versions of WWII aircraft, with most being available to fly by players, including the Luftwaffe aircraft from Bayerische Flugzeugwerke and Junkers, the Royal Air Force Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane, and others." (I'm eyeballing the larger groupings off the tables). This still gives an idea of the broad scope of craft included but without the detail that GAMEGUIDE discourages. --M asem (t) 16:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2021 (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.