Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games developed in Belgium


 * 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, default to keep. The main dispute revolves around the question of how much value these lists add to Wikipedia on top of the categories. The "keep" side argued that the lists do provide sufficient additional value; the "delete" side argued that the additional value is insignificant or that it doesn't make sense to classify software based on the nationality of their developers. Opinions are clearly divided without any sign of heading towards consensus. Since most of these articles have been around for several years, I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 13:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

List of video games developed in Belgium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An incomplete list that will probably never be finished. This list has only had 3 edits in it's entire lifespan.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also nominating, for the same reason:
 * (the majority of the listings in this are redlinks)
 * (the majority of the listings in this are redlinks)
 * There is one other lists like this (Netherlands) which isn't listed because it contain a large amount of entries. Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all I don't see any valid deletion rationales here. Only having 3 edits isn't a reason for deletion, neither is that it'll "probably never be finished". These lists go hand-in-hand with the categories they are in (for example Category:Video games developed in Belgium), and as they're a list of notable articles, per WP:CLN, they should be kept.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Under the link you referenced (WP:CLN, under the disadvantages of a list, it says "Every article links to its categories in a consistent way, but lists may be more difficult to discover because not every article listed links to it, and each may choose to link to it in a different way. Attempting to enforce crosslinks from articles in the category is error-prone, makes editing the list taxing, and counteracts the ease-of-editing benefits lists otherwise enjoy". That's exactly what these lists are, taxing and pointless when the categories exist.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:AOAC. Basically WP:NOTDUP applies and no list is ever deleted simply because it exists as a category.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No list is ever kept simply because a duplicate category exists for it either. NOTDUP is an anti-deletion rationale, not a keep rationale, and there's also other factors at play here.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete all, including List of video games developed in the Netherlands as well, as redundant to their categories. Sure, NOTDUP exists, but the existence of such a content fork still has to be justifiable. I just don't see the extra information being given here to be actually useful to readers, and they have the potential to get hideously long (Category:Video games developed in the United States for example has 1700+ entries). Considering the fact that the articles are terribly written, completely unsourced, potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE (as no sources actually talk about or list games this way), and don't even follow the MOS (the Hong Kong one, for example, blatantly violates WP:ENGLISH) a healthy dosage of WP:TNT may work as well.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  12:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 16:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all as complement to Category:Video games by country of developer category structure per WP:NOTDUP. Really nothing need be more said to justify them, given that the deletion arguments above are a laundry list of arguments to avoid (particularly WP:NOEFFORT). WP:AOAL already sets forth the capabilities that lists have that categories do not, and all of these lists are already even developed into sortable and annotated tables. And if the developer's country is significant enough to categorize, then it's significant enough to list; you can't claim the same information is indiscriminate in one context and not in another when the only difference is the presentation format. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I don't see the benefit of having a "list of video games developed in [x]". We're talking about geographical boundaries, which say absolutely nothing about the game or the video game industry in that place. Video gaming in the Netherlands is informative, List of video games developed in the Netherlands is not; it's just a list of games, with the only thing in common they were developed in the Netherlands. Further more, why the distinction of a city, like List of video games developed in Hong Kong? We don't have articles like List of video games developed in Montreal either (I'm referring to Ubisoft Montreal, EA Montreal and Eidos Montréal). At the same time, there aren't articles like List of video games developed in Japan or List of video games developed in the United States either, because they would become to unwieldy. A category of "games developed in [x]" is fine, this is unnecessary. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence undermines your entire argument; if this information "is fine" as a category, how can the same information "say absolutely nothing" about the topic as a list? postdlf (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because categories merely categorize articles, but lists have to actually talk about them? No reliable sources actually discuss all the video games developed in Belgium. They might talk about video gaming in Belgium, but we already have that article at Video gaming in Belgium. This, meanwhile, is blatantly WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "...lists have to actually talk about them..." No, they don't. The list doesn't need to double as a prose topical article, or to have any more justification than having the same information as the category, just in a different presentation format, along with the added benefit of being able to have direct sources, annotations, and sortability. If you prefer to use categories in this context, keep doing that, and just ignore the lists. That's the whole point of WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except lists do need more justification for their existence than categories. Unlike categories, which exist primarily for the purpose of categorizing articles and thus regular Wikipedia guidelines do not apply to them, lists are articles and thus need to demonstrate notability, verifiability, and all that to meet WP:42. So unless you can prove the existence of sources that talk about "lists of video games developed in Belgium" specifically (as opposed to video gaming in Belgium) this list falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LISTPURP basically says that lists can be valuable sources of information. This is not a valuable source of information, and saying "we should keep this list because a duplicate category exists for it" is not enough for keeping.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  00:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying WP:LISTN must be satisfied here, but of course that guideline itself says it is only one way of addressing notability. More generally, you seem just unfamiliar with list and category practice and standards. Your assertions aren't reflected in guidelines nor demonstrated AFD consensus, no matter how many times you repeat them. And that's all we're doing at this point, so good day, sir. postdlf (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go on about this either, but since your closing statement accused me of being unfamiliar with/violating guidelines, I reckon it's only fair that I get to respond to these accusations. Yes, LISTN isn't perfect, but it is the best and most relevant guideline here, seeing as this isn't a cross-categorization list and neither does it fill a "recognized" purpose when many countries, such as the United States, doesn't even have a corresponding list, and when Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources explicitly talks about citing sources. Additionally, when the opposing argument is that lists and categories are one and the same and an anti-deletion rationale like WP:NOTDUP is being used as a keep rationale, I daresay LISTN is as valid as any.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep All - This is a useful type of subcategory, and there is enough information to expand. Video games by country is actually a very useful thing to look up, especially from an academic perspective.  It has been noted numerous times by critics and academics that video games from different countries are vastly different from each other, and that games from the same country tend to have unifying features or outlooks.  The list of games can certainly be completed, as there are a finite number of games from any given country, although some countries will have a VERY long list... those might be sub-dividable further.  Each list article can ALSO contain relevant and properly sourced information about what academics/critics/reviewers believe are defining features of games from that country.  For example, games from Russia tend to be very bleak, games from japan have a different view of weapons than other countries, and so forth (just off the top of my head). Fieari (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of your points are actually relevant to this discussion though. Firstly, no-one is suggesting that we delete the categories, we're only proposing to delete these redundant listicles that go along with it. Secondly, the stuff about Russian games being bleak or Japanese game weapons are better discussed on articles such as Video gaming in Russia or Video gaming in Japan, as well as what academics say about them.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , what academic perspective are you talking about? This seems WP:OR to me, why would you think Japanese video game developers have a different view on weapons? I think Shinji Mikami and Suda51 might feel very differently. If there is such research, that would somehow show that games from a certain country are similar in a way, that would allow for its own article, or at least a mention in the articles on "video gaming in [x]". soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - The category "list of games developed in X" ties the game to a country via a developer. What makes sense is to have one or more lists of developers/designers/publishers in the country, and then a separate least for the games each of those developers/designers/publishers have released (likely built into the article about those entities). That's the underlying meaning here. WP:NOTDUP means it doesn't duplicate a category and shouldn't be deleted for that reason; it doesn't mean that we should have a list for every category (i.e. that it's not a deletion rationale doesn't make it a keep rationale). I say delete or merge because there may be developer lists it would make sense to move the content to. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question - I find it odd that the nom suggests keeping the Netherlands article simply because it has a large number of entries. If the number of entries and edits to the articles (along with the idea that they won't be improved) are the justification for deleting them, why not keep them and apply some WP:FIXIT? I'm sure there are enough games out there for the small lists to match or exceed the Netherlands list. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Netherlands article shouldn't be exempt from this just because it has more entries. The problem is the article format, not the number of entries. We don't delete based on the current state of an article except in extreme circumstances, if there's a way to fix it. We delete when the list itself is problematic. And in this case, I think it is problematic. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: While the nominator excluded List of video games developed in the Netherlands, the basis for exclusion wasn't sound, and it looks like all of the participants who have supported deletion wish to include the Netherlands article in that decision. Since the article wasn't tagged, however, and as it seems too late now, it would probably be inappropriate to delete. So perhaps it's better left for a separate discussion, or perhaps if this is closed as delete then that could be taken as precedent for a bold redirect of that article? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – These articles qualify per WP:NOTDUP relative to the following categories:
 * Category:Video games developed in Belgium
 * Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic
 * Category:Video games developed in France
 * Category:Video games developed in Hong Kong
 * Category:Video games developed in Portugal
 * Category:Video games developed in Slovakia
 * They also qualify as functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. Also, these articles can be expanded with descriptions, sources, images, etc., which cannot be done with categories. Inre the nomination rationale, see also WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTBUILT. North America1000 16:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (and others) WP:NOTDUP is an antidote to a particular delete argument, but it's not a keep argument apart from that (i.e. the only time it should be a keep argument is when the only deletion argument is ~"this duplicates the category"). The existence of a category isn't justification for a list; it's merely not justification for deletion. There are topics/purposes for which either a list or category might be more appropriate than the other simply because the systems have different purposes (which, after all, is the basis of WP:NOTDUP).
 * Similarly, navigational aids aren't exempted from the rest of the guidelines for lists -- they're just one of several purposes embedded or stand-alone lists can have. The list is still subject to e.g. WP:LISTN/WP:SAL, or else this same rationale about navigation could be applied to literally any conceivable list that linked to Wikipedia articles (e.g. List of European bands with albums named after animals featured in George Orwell's Animal Farm could be argued a navigational aid if it linked to bands with Wikipedia articles). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your slippery slope fear is not based on experience or based on a consensus-supported view (see, e.g., WP:LISTOUTCOMES). You're also artificially compartmentalizing the issues by insisting both that the existence of the category structure has no bearing on whether corresponding lists should exist, and that you think navigational function is no basis for keeping lists (which is contra WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTPURP). Given how strict we are with categories, if a category is not unverifiable, indiscriminate, or trivial than a corresponding list obviously isn't either (a point that has already been made). Regardless, the response to your claim that the list needs some special justification beyond what justifies the corresponding category has already been provided above multiple times, in describing what these lists already do that the categories cannot. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a slippery slope fear. The question of why this should be kept is somewhere in the question of "why would we keep list of video games developed in Belgium but not my list of European bands with... example?" If the arguments you're giving would result in both being kept, then clearly something is wrong. If the argument relies on "because one seems useful to me and the other does not", then something is wrong. If the argument relies on abandoning all responsibility for judgment by saying "well we have a category for one of them", then something is wrong. In other words, it's not "this is a slippery slope"; it's "there needs to be a better reason for keeping".
 * Navigation is a purpose of a list, yes. But do you think that just saying "it's a navigational aid" grants a free pass to have any list you can think of as long as it links to Wikipedia articles? If not, then it's obviously not enough to simply say that. I'm trying to determine what the basis for keeping is beyond that. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of general policies and guidelines such as WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, or WP:IINFO that prevent us from realizing your straw man. And again, if the category passes those bottom-level thresholds and WP:OCAT, then the list also does and is necessarily also useful for navigation because it's the same information just in a different format. If you also think the category structure should be deleted, that argument of course would not satisfy you, but you'd also be the only commenter here expressing that view or questioning whether country of origin was a significant enough fact to merit indexing by list or category. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're using negative rhetorical terms like "straw man" but still haven't offered an argument for why these articles should be kept [and the example I gave should not]. If those policies and guidelines "prevent us from realizing [that example]", what is the basis for distinction?
 * Perhaps it just comes down to what seems to be a central point of disagreement: The existence of a category (regardless of its validity) does not, as far as I'm concerned, automatically validate a corresponding list article (because they are different processes with different purposes and different requirements). Obviously I've not argued anything like "the category [structure] should be deleted" (speaking of straw men), because whether a category exists should be irrelevant to the question of whether to delete a list (not a reason to delete, and not a reason to keep). It had not occurred to me that anyone would hold a position otherwise. I suppose that's a matter for a project talk page rather than here, though. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete All I feel these lists just duplicate the corresponding categories while adding little extra value. Lists can be very valuable as navigation aids; for example, a list corresponding to a higher-level category can make the structure of the lower-level categories clearer (compare List of operating systems to Category:Operating systems). They are also useful for e.g. officeholders, in that they make clear the temporal aspects of it in ways that a category can't. But these lists don't seem to do any of that; while it does provide the info in chronological order, the members of the list aren't necessarily temporally related to each other (unlike e.g. a political office which only one person can hold at a time.) SJK (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep all  We normally do have such lists, unless the categories are very small. They have the potential of adding context, and helping people find the article they are looking for. And not just the potential--they give the platform, the year, and the developer--I don't see this as "adding   little extra value" -- these are 3 basic and very helpful factors.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The context is "video gaming in [x]", not "list of video games developed in [x]". And what article would the reader be looking for exactly? We've already established that there's a category on the subject. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Video games have no "nationality", the geographical boundaries in which they were developed is not of importance and does not provide the reader with any additional knowledge. Seeing a list of "video games developed in [x]" does not somehow lead to a greater understanding of those games or the video game industry of that country. Is a game created in [x] typical for [x]? Is Scottish developer Rockstar North's take on American pop culture with the Grand Theft Auto series typical for Scotland? Writer-producers Dan Houser and Sam Houser, both English, live in New York City. That leads to my following point:
 * The reason for inclusion is unnecessarily strict, some games are developed by teams around the world. And what exactly are we going to consider "developed"? Video game music is very much a part of a game and its development. Jesper Kyd apparently recorded the soundtrack to Assassin's Creed II in Los Angeles, with the game developed in Montreal; while BioShock 2's main campaign was developed by 2K Marin, from the U.S., the multiplayer part was developed by Digital Extremes, from Canada. List of video games developed in the United States and Canada? List of video games developed in Canada and the United States? What about Far Cry 4, mainly developed by Ubisoft Montreal with additional work by Ubisoft Toronto, Red Storm Entertainment (from North Carolina), Ubisoft Shanghai, and Ubisoft Kiev. What about ports? BioShock was originally developed by 2K Boston and 2K Australia, it was ported to the PlayStation 3 by Digital Extremes and to iOS by 2K China. List of video game ports developed in China?
 * I also like to point out the fact that the city of Hong Kong is a "Special Administrative Region" of China. So we've already got List of video games developed in Belgium, are we going to have List of video games developed in Flanders or List of video games developed in Ghent? And again, Rockstar North, List of video games developed in the United Kingdom, List of video games developed in Scotland, List of video games developed in Great Britain? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally agree with the above. It makes sense to have "Games by developer X", "Games by publisher X", "Developers in country X", "Publishers in country X", "Designers in country X" and many other possible combinations, but not games developed by companies or people in country X. If, on the off chance, there are examples of a game's development being important to the country (or the reverse), it's covered in "video gaming in country X". The connection is too indiscriminate for a separate list and it's made redundant by the other more specific lists (if there's content to merge to developer/designer/company articles/lists, I'd support that, of course). Speaking of indiscriminate, yes, it would also be possible to have a "list of games developed in city/state/province/region/continent X", which would be kept using the same keep arguments, it seems. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all This is why there are categories, I thought. The redundancy seems unnecessary and work-making (in the form of manual list additions, which may not even be made by article creators who don't realize there's this list their article must be added to in addition to adding the category, so that this list isn't even going to be as inclusive as clicking on the cat link) for no good reason.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  00:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.