Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Alphabetical list of NES Rom Hacks

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical list of NES Rom Hacks

List with no criteria for inclusion (eg. this includes anyone whose ever "hacked" a ROM. No reliable sources, verifiability attesting to the notability/popularity of any of these games. Also nominating List of NES ROM hacks. Wickethewok 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not maintainable or encylopedic.--Andeh 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic red-link farm. Of the entire list, only 4 are bluelinked: 2 of those are accidental mislinks, and 2 are currently up for AFD. Sadly, those looking for articles on "Super KKK Bros. 2", "The Naked Little Mermaid", or "MegaFAG" will have to look elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ROM hacks are well outside the scope of Wikipedia, as they can't meet any measure of notability. The results of many recent AFDs support this. The products of some dude mucking around with a hex editor are not relevant to anyone except the tiniest fraction of hardcore video game players. A list of these ROMs is equally non-encyclopedic. SubSeven 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty sure this is vanity as many of the hacks are done by User:RyanVG and the editor is User:GVnayR. RyanVG redirects to GVnayR. --ColourBurst 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per unfortunate general unverifiability, as the many other ROM hack AfDs this week. --SevereTireDamage 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per norm Newspaper98 06:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. They're just ROM hacks. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Stellmach 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ROM hacks which are notable enough to warrant mention (because of their extensiveness) can probably be covered in the ROM hacking article. UOSSReiska 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Peephole 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--
• Strong Delete. While I don't agree with the blanket assumption that ROM hacks are automaticallly speediable like some people seem to, this is listcruft. Furthermore, looking down the article, 95% of these ROM hacks aren't considered notable in the ROM hacking community, much less on Wikipedia. Normally I'd suggest a move to [1] or another ROM hacking Wiki, but this list is pretty much useless. --Gau 08:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or redo from scratch. While I do not agree with some of the above commenters on ROM hacks generally being too unnotable to be mentioned by Wikipedia - calling them just ROM hacks in a derogatory way is certainly off place, seeing as many of them have very few left to do with the original game both in gameplay and technical aspects; some outstanding examples even surpass anything that was released for the NES in its time by far in quality -, this list, as it is now, is pretty much worthless, and, by having picked quite the worst possible examples, puts the whole subject in a worse light than it belongs into. --Blackhole89 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very few of these games are actually notable, and I bet another dozen are being created as we speak- in other words, it would be far too difficult to keep up. Sonicrazy 04:00, 8 August 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.