Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games (eighth generation)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

List of video games (eighth generation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We have longstanding sequential articles that provide for this topic. See List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation). The article creator proposed a major revision in July. Fearing that his idea would not meet with a favourable reception (see brief discussion) he proceeded and created a new article no matter. My main objection is that the new page is essentially a duplication of the existing one. Moreover, keeping the information updated requires a great deal more work. There are more fields that require modifying and the table is so long it is easy to lose track of basic header information. A quick look at the history tab shows that these articles are rarely updated relative to other video game list articles. Proofreading is lacking. For this reason it's best to keep things as straightforward as possible to encourage participation. There is zero reference table at this time. — TPX 12:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  — TPX 13:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) is no more than a compilation of three existing articles with non-exclusive games removed. That article serves no purpose at all. I'm not going to reiterate myself here (read there instead: Talk:List of video game exclusives (eighth generation)). But more importantly, you've probably have gone too far to have, really, requesting for an deletion on the new article that I've created, even though it has its purpose. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  13:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The seventh and eighth generation articles were created long before I started editing them. Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers (Gears, Mario, Forza) in order to make an informed decision. Everyone can appreciate the effort you have expended to create a new article, but there is a considerable amount of overlap between exiting pages and the new article that I don't understand what the point is. Encouraging editors to proofread these type of lists is hard enough as it is. — TPX 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like I'm going to reiterate to here from the last time I said there. They lost their purpose ever since that the "exclusive" column has been returned to the game list. They can just go to the main game list to look at exclusive games just fine. Some readers may prefer a different table with different sorting system revolving exclusive. The new article does not require frequent updates because it does not have release dates and many other game info, just the game title, exclusivity, and availability. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  18:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That is why I placed "more concisely" in italics when I said "Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers" because the same information can be found by visiting each list article separately. If you believe they are unnecessary then feel free to nominate both for deletion. But what you should not do is create a yet another third unwieldy article consisting of the same information. — TPX 18:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No need to tell me what I should and should not do... the new article clearly isn't for you. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  18:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that the list is redundant and unnecessary to list out when we have so many list articles on 8th gen games. What about turning it into a "list of lists" though. Rather than re-listing every single video game released since 2011, just list off the game lists for any of the 8th gen consoles. I.e., List of Nintendo 3DS games, List of PlayStation 4 games, etc etc. Sergecross73   msg me  14:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very redundant to list same games twice, sure, but sometimes that's a good thing, we can cross-check for the questionable games between two lists. Though that's not what the new article is about, it's another list with conpletely different column that will provide different purpose to the readers. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the point though? Each individual list already tracks all of this information, including exclusivity of software. This is a massive, unwieldy list that is going to require a ton of maintenance, without any payoff, since it's all documented elsewhere already. (And in a better fashion too - this list has a ridiculous number of "unknown" fields.) Sergecross73   msg me  16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:List of Xbox 360 games is where I got idea from. i thought it's good but it would be crazy to add any more columns to the existing table that's already taken the whole screen, so duplicate the list with a entirely new columns will be more ideal. There are more room for more columns, too, but that's all for now. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What about we move and merge the genre, developer, and publisher columns from three articles to this new article? This new article could save someone's edits up to three times because they don't have to add such info to each game list. I don't like this idea though. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  18:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Its already a very large undertaking to maintain these individual List of PlayStation 4 games-type lists. I believe this proposed combined massive one containing all games from Wii U, PS4, and Xbox 360 is too much to maintain by itself, let alone maintaining the individual lists and your proposed massive combined one concurrently. Especially for something that's entirely redundant anyways. We don't need this. Wikipedia isn't a buyers guide or some "ConsoleWars" fansite. Its an encyclopedia.  Sergecross73   msg me  13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Now I realized that articles revolving exclusives/exclusivity information are very console war like articles mostly maintained by fans. Do List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) deserve to stay too? TPX's reason as stated above sounds like they're buyers' guide. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  01:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I will vote for deletion if the pages are nominated. There is no real purpose for List of PC exclusive games to exist when exclusive titles are denoted on List of PC games. — TPX 12:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll try to nominate these exclusive articles for deletion tomorrow. PC exclusive games article could just turn into a redirect page instead to retain its edit history then someone will still have a chance to merge if they feel like it. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - per my comments above and the nom. List is entirely redundant to other already better done lists. Open to recreating as a DAB like page that lists all of the separate lists that already exist that already contain all of this info, though even that is probably more or less already at the 8th gen page. Sergecross73   msg me  16:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - article creator here, it's useful for cross referencing but probably useless to the readers. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  01:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not adding value to the project and not helpful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2016 (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.