Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game collector and limited editions


 * 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 no consensus. the wub "?!"  20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

List of video game collector and limited editions

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure listcruft; furthermore, this list does not add anything to Wikipedia. What collector's editions there are in the world is completely insignificant information. MessedRocker (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree: it's listcruft. I believe it's fancruft and just clutter as well. As I've stated before: in comparison DVDs have just as much (if not more) limited editions it seems, that doesn't justify a list of the more notable ones. RobJ1981 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In order for something to qualify as listcruft, it must be unnecessary and irrelevent to the original topic. This is far from unnecessary or irrelevent. It's just as "irrelevent" as a list of all the budget games. Xizer 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is fairly standard faire to release a collector/limited/special edition of a video game these days, so there really isn't much to this list that doesn't fail WP:NOT. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete MR, as he frequently does, has this one nailed on the head- this is just listcruft. Obviously, a game's article should talk about its limited edition releases, but we don't need a big collection of them. -- Kicking222 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete - people can find this info in shops or games' articles or websites.--Svetovid 20:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC) The actual reason for deletion: collection of loosely associated topics.--Svetovid 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - We have articles listing Greatest Hits, Player's Choice, or Platinum Hits games. That information can also be found in shops, games' articles, and websites. Why is a list of collector's editions being singled out? This is very useful information to have a collection of it together. Someone hunting all video games that have had collector's editions released would find this to be very useful. I'd say this probably deserves to be kept more than the discount titles lists, because new games are constantly being added to the Player's Choice/Greatest Hits/whatever libraries. Xizer 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then all those should be deleted as well. MessedRocker (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "greatest hits" lists serve a purpose, as people actually look for cheaper games. Who in the hell specifically looks for special editions of games? And what does "new games are constantly being added to the [greatest hits] libraries have to do with anything? As if companies have all of a sudden stopped making limited editions? I don't understand your logic here. -- Kicking222 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know, perhaps one of the over 7,000 members at this website dedicated to collecting video games might have some passing interest in the subject?: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/index.php Xizer 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing administrator (and, ostensibly, anyone else) Xizer has specifically advertised this AfD on the site s/he mentions above- though, in his/her defense, the mention does not say "vote to keep this article!", but rather asks if the article is useful and if the info can be found in other places. Also note that Nindanjoe below has zero other contributions to Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With that said, I'm a huge gamer, and I've never- in my entire life- heard of specifically collecting limited editons of games. Collecting retro and classic gams, sure. But limited editions? There's no forum on that site that is devoted to limited editions. I honestly don't know what that one site (of the many, many, many sites devoted to classic gaming) have to do with this. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article deletions should be based on its policies, not on the opinion of some neckbeard trolling Wikipedia. Despite the fact that thousands of people collect limited edition video games (and this is from MY personal experience), that is not what is up for debate here. The debate is whether the article is listcruft. Unlike some of the article examples given on the listcruft policy page such as "List of people who have ears," this article actually has useful information. Have you ever wondered why I am defending this article so valiantly? Maybe it's because I collect limited edition video games. There you go! You just heard of someone in your whole life who does collected limited edition video games. Xizer 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically every game that released an expansion/sequeal is going to have a "special edition" that bundles both. There is nothing more special about this. I remember when HL2 first came out, there was a special (or gold) edition, which gave you a tshirt with the box. Special editions, really are not special. Corpx 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I am not part of the game collecting crowd; however, I understand enough of the collecting desire to know that having a list of special and limited editions allows for easy look up. Having the list at Wikipedia will also allow adding and confirmation along with a potential time line for future reference. The argument of the information being found in shops, games' articles, and websites is valid yet is missing something. Shops won't always have the information one may desire. Websites die off. The common element with both of those is time. Eventually the shops won't know what special edition you're talking about. The official websites will eventually change or die off, along with the information. Although not a special edition, a few official sites for old adventure games no longer exist. The Quest for Glory series, for example. Games' articles, I don't know the legal area about re-posting these articles (magazines, scans or otherwise), but as long as they are always available, then you can find the information. You may even find them being used as a source for this Wikipedia article, if it stays. It should already be known about the importance of information and having them available now rather than desperately hunting fohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_video_game_collector_and_limited_editions&action=editr that exact information in the future when it's harder to find. Nindanjoe 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Nindanjoe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong keep per Nindanjoe and Xizer. As a member of WikiProject Video games, please keep this useful and well-referenced article concerning major, notable and verifiable examples of games.  Thank you.--  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To the people advocating the keeping of this article - can you give a reason that is grounded in policy on why this article should be kept? MessedRocker (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give a reason that is grounded in policy on why this article should be deleted? 74.71.216.11 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article fails Notability, specifically the part requiring "significant coverage" of the subject. Information on collector's/special editions best belong in the respective articles about the games themselves; they do not warrant a list on Wikipedia. MessedRocker (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also Listcruft, which is neither a policy nor a guideline but is relevant to this issue (as well as the issue of notability in general). MessedRocker (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I already explained why this doesn't qualify as "listcruft," as noted above. Do you honestly think this is on the same level as a list of people who have ears? Why should this information be kept to the specific articles themselves? I guess a List of PlayStation games doesn't deserve to have an article either. After all, where's the "significant coverage?" The point is to have a list of games that are collector's editions instead of having to look at every single game article on Wikipedia to determine whether it has a collector's edition of it or not. Is that not the reason why there is a list of games article for each system? So that one has a list of games that have that attribute (i.e. being a PlayStation game)? Xizer 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying it does doesn't make it so. There is nothing in those that is saying what you want to stretch them to say. 74.71.216.11 07:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Actually if you'd read the article, you wouldnt have to try and remember what that release was about, you'd have a sourced entry describing no less than 6 differences between it and the regular edition. Deusfaux 13:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Why do some people insist on trying to rid wikipedia of this article? It has passed previous AfDs as recently as May this year, and has only improved and become a better article since each and every time. The information provided in each entry is NOT found in the individual games' articles on wikipedia (or any other singular place on the net), and even if it were, a single page list is a far more efficient means of providing that info to users. The notability of CE and LE's could be understood by seeing the numerous articles that are written on major high traffics sites like IGN - sometimes multiple articles by the same website about the same CE (see a SINGLE title; Bioshock, as a recent example here, here, and here - which you can double for all the 360 version pages). Nominator fails to make any reasonable argument that hasnt already been made in the past, furthermore, declarations of "fancruft" is not an argument at all. This is also NOT just a list of what CE's are out there, but far more importantly, what makes them a CE (their contents, etc). Comparisons to DVDs are irrelevant because we are not talking about DVD CEs, we are talking about video game CEs, which are a significantly different thing. Deusfaux 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If this article can pass AfD when it had no references, and has since been nearly 100% referenced (and then inline referenced), surely there is less and less reason to delete it as we go on. Deusfaux 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Deusfaux 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Here is a link to the last nomination in May 2007: Articles for deletion/List of computer and video game collector and limited editions (fourth nomination) Deusfaux 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   Deusfaux 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but create Videogames with a Special Edition Category, or something, and then just include all the games in the category. Fin©™ 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And then you wouldnt know anything about the CEs themselves, where this article serves to inform. Deusfaux 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, If this was a catagory we would lose a lot of editions that don't have their own pages along with the definition of the namesake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 041744 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep as the list is very well referenced and is very limited in scope (read the first few paragraphs). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Suitable references would be to published articles discussing this as a topic.This is a totally unencyclopedic list, about as unsuitable as List of books published in gift editions would be. There do exist some good lists, but this is not among them. Any info could go with the individual articles and I suppose its there already. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In response to Deusfax's comment: special edition DVD and video games are very similar. Many video games have collector (or special, or limited editions) as do movies. This is an acceptable comparision, even if you refuse to accept it. RobJ1981 05:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some video games have a CE as defined, but the vast MAJORITY of movies do. That is the vast and appreciable difference, even if you refuse to accept it.Deusfaux 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable et verifiable. Ab e g92 contribs 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not a popularity vote. You are supposed to explain how it's "Notable". Also, verifiability was never questioned.--Svetovid 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unmaintainable list... this will eventually wind up 300 pages long if you include every collector/limited edition ever released. Better as a category. Nuke the list.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 05:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my next comment above. You are making claims not based in reality. As defined by the scope of the article, it is 99% complete. This list would only wind up 300 pages long, 300 years from now. Please stop presuming video game CE's are anywhere near the level of movie or dvd CE's.  Also please read the defintion of one and understand how limited and focused the article is. Deusfaux 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Claims not based on reality? That comment was rude, and just not needed. Not everyone must agree with you: the ones that do, shouldn't be attacked like that. Just because video games have less editions than DVDs isn't a reason to justify this video game list. RobJ1981 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to point out Deusfaux is posting on many user's talk pages to comment at this AFD. I see this as canvassing: which is unacceptable. I posted on his talk page about this. RobJ1981 11:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rude? The suggestion of "300 pages long" was not a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can agree to disagree; it's a statement of fact which is so far beyond the actual situation that it needs to be called out as wildly inaccurate.  Powers T 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, yet again. This list certainly hasn't become less encyclopedic since the last time.  Let's go over the points again. 1) It's not suitable as a category because this list has annotation which is essential to the encyclopedic value.  2) This is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it's tightly focused, organized, referenced, and encyclopedic.  3) While it's true a general encyclopedia would not usually include this level of detail on this topic, a specialized video game encyclopedia probably would; Wikipedia, being not paper, is often both general and specialized.  4) This list compiles specific information from numerous separate articles into one location; restricting this information to the individual game articles reduces the encyclopedic value of the information by making it almost impossible to compare entries to each other.  Powers T 14:39, 23 August 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.