Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games published by Nintendo


 * 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 Keep. --Daniel Olsen 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

List of video games published by Nintendo


This is an unmaintainable list, and an indiscriminate collection of information. Anything it conveys or could ever hope to convey is better handled by Category:Nintendo games and its parents/children, or by the articles themselves (e.g. Animal Forest later being on the GameCube). The page hasn't reached critical mass, but it is absolutely inevitable. GarrettTalk 04:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete already served by a cat. ColourBurst 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

KEEP this is a HUGE part of gamin history, we cant delete it Chuck61007 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. GarrettTalk 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless as a list. Let's see how many people claim that categories are never redundant with lists. -Amarkov blahedits 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Converting into a category will lose data, for instance the date the game was released, and for what platform it was released for. The game output of one single company is not untrackable; I'm not convinced this is unmaintainable. There's plenty of manpower on WP that can make timely updates on video games. hateless 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If that data's not in the articles themselves, Wikipedia's in worse shape than we thought. Delete.  --humblefool&reg; 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (I knew someone would make this counter argument.) The difference between this list and having the data in every article is that you dont need to access 200+ articles to get the same kind of information. hateless 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per master and Amar - Missvain 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Inc Ruic 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. First off, this isn't just a combination of List of NES games, etc.  These are games actually published by Nintendo themselves, and the list isn't likely to grow threefold overnight as some seem to speculate.  Also, I find the argument stating that it's already in categories to be invalid -- a lot of these games simply do not even have their own articles, and the information would not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia if not for this article. --Czj 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a given that redlinks will be lost when this or any other article is removed. This argument could be applied to any article (even one comprised entirely of redlinks) so I don't think it's a valid argument for keeping. GarrettTalk 07:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It discriminates quite nicely. See, if it isn't published by Nintendo, it doesn't go in the list. Everyking 09:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sorts the games in a different manner than the categories (bu year and by console). Not unmaintainable since there the number of games is reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not unmaintainable, not indiscriminate. Weak Keep per Czj - Amists  talk •  contribs 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's already been said the genre of items that can go in here are quite narrow. Only games that nintendo has actually published can go in here. Given that Nintendo themselves publish (I think) abouit 10-20 games per year at the most it's not likely that this is going to become unusable. Not to mention the games are uite nicely partitioned by year so it is useful for research if needed, or just browsing Nintendo's history BigHairRef | Talk 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I hate listcruft and think most lists fall under this category. However, this is not listcruft but is rather an example of an appropriate type of list. Clear and narrow guidelines and a good way of categorizing games.  --The Way 11:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep The best kind of list has narrow scope, includes information (such as chronology) that can't be conveyed by categories, and can include red links for articles that don't (yet) exist. This is exactly such a list. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per argument by User:The Way.-- Farquaadhnchmn ( Dungeon ) 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep umaintainable? Couldn't we just look up Nintendo's website for new releases? Indiscriminate? How is having an article listing only the games by one particular company indiscriminate? Nominator's assertions about the article are simply wrong. Cynical 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BigHairRef. TJ Spyke 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per hateless. --- RockMFR 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really strong keep This is the sort of thing someone might look up.  This sort of list is verifiable.  This list conveys information not in the category. A blindingly obvious keep. i kan reed 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it's maintainable as it is only one company. Only using categories would get rid of useful and important data such as release dates and platforms. Lists usually suck, but not this one. Voretus  talk  14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easily maintainable, and provides more info on one page than a catagory could. Perhaps make tables showing even more detail? Perhaps include Developers? Month of release? Length of Development? Chief Game designers?Help plz 22:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Of interest to any number of individuals. Rever e ndG 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep • s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • November 19, 2006.
 * Keep and trim down to only most significant titles. Noclip 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply trimming it would remove perfectly valid content. A complete list is just what someone would want on this page. i kan reed 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A long list article is not grounds for deletion, nor is this unmaintainable or indiscriminate. Nintendo is a major publisher of video games, even before they had their own consoles, they were making games.  We should have articles on most of their video games, so why not this list which organizes how their games were released?  This isn't red-headed stepchildren people!  FrozenPurpleCube 15:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete already served by a cat. Chopper Dave 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - need is NOT served by the category. Category does not separate titles by year, etc, only by alphabetical order.  This list is usefull. Esn 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Way. I also suggest strengthening the language in the article as to what is included in its scope, else editors will spend more time than necessary removing games published by other FOR a Nintendo system. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Neither unmaintainable nor indiscrimate, and I'm not sure how this article could reach critical mass. Maxamegalon2000 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well-organized list with information that I'm sure a lot of people look up. Having it organized by year is much more convenient than having to use a cat. Bobbyi 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A good list of information, some of which, stated above, can't be found elsewhere on WP. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Same as everyone else who wants to keep.Uturnaroun 20:11, 21 November 2006 (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.