Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game companies of Sweden


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

List of video game companies of Sweden

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Most entries are not notable and make up an indiscriminate list without specific inclusion criteria. The notable entries duplicate Category:Video game companies of Sweden. Apparently, a copy of. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As with any list of this kind, in which some members of an encyclopedic group are notable but not all (alumni of Foo University, people from Foo, companies that make Foo), the base inclusion standard is whether the member merits its own article, whether or not it has one at present. And that's as far as WP:NOTDIR goes in this context as well.  So remove all the unlinked and redlinked entries that never should become articles based on notability standards.  AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.  Regarding the existence of a category, see WP:CLN; the browsing systems are complementary.  One function a list can provide is to identify missing article topics, which the redlinks in this list (or even some of the nonlinks) may be (I don't know yet; you probably don't either).  Even if this list is trimmed down only to bluelink articles, it can surpass the category's mere alphabetic title sorting utility by providing annotations, such as date of establishment (or disestablishment), location of headquarters, notable games produced or notable people associated, etc.  postdlf (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a WP:CFORK from the country-sortable List of video game developers. I know this is AfD and NOTCLEANUP. My concern is the usefulness of such a list after cleanup; or, if you prefer, notability of a cross-categorized list as a group per WP:LISTN. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, I don't think there is any other country-specific list /Category:Video game companies by country. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a different story. If it's truly redundant to List of video game developers, and there's not a good reason for a WP:SPLIT of that into separate lists, then redirect it there.  But I wouldn't consider WP:LISTN at all relevant to that question, and note that it's not talking about lists of articles, but rather lists of sets of possibly non-notable members (such as TV episode lists).  Regarding lists of articles (often called navigational lists or article indexes), if it is encyclopedic to categorize articles by a given fact or set of facts, then it's also encyclopedic to list them by the same facts, and it's purely a question of editing judgment as to whether it should be merged into a larger list or stand alone.  You can view notability as being satisfied by the companies in the list each being notable, as well as by the organizing facts (the company's industry and home country) being notable.postdlf (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I withdraw this now, WP:LISTN is a part of WP:NOTABILITY and it not exempt from WP:GNG. The subject of the article has to be notable, in this case "Swedish game developers". Individual item notability is not required (WP:LSC). All this applies to indexes and outlines equally. Also "Sweden" and "game developer" being notable does not make the cross-section group notable, GNG does. Of course, the article can exist per WP:SPLIT. But it was still CFORK and did not merit splitting. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines for lists are incomplete at best. You'd do better to look at actual practice, both in terms of what lists exist without controversy and what lists pass AFD.  Article indexes do not have to be notable as indexes, only encyclopedic, the same as categories (list inclusion stds.are even looser than categories in practice).  And indexes (such as lists of people, companies, films, etc.) are limited to notable entries with few exceptions, because otherwise they'd be indiscriminate directories like phone books.  postdlf (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline or policy that says GNG is not applicable to lists, and list notability guideline has not yet been drafted. I am evaluating the article on its own merits, not on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there is a long-standing difference in list notability that contradicts existing guidelines, then this has to be addressed in the guidelines first. But, again, I did not specify GNG as the nomination rationale because I do know that list notability criteria is unclear. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment If we keep this is should probably be moved to something like List of Swedish video game companies since the other title seems a little weird in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.188.209 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdraw. I actually found two reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the topic -- "Swedish game developers/-ment" -- that I did not think were there. . Although my argument wasn't GNG from the start; CFORK and NOTDIRECTORY is now moot if GNG is fully satisfied. Sorry I wasted time and didn't notice both of these before. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:32, 19 July 2011 (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.