Wiki143:Articles for deletion/List of fictional electronic games

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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional electronic games

Crufty list not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, indiscriminate collection of information. Brian G. Crawford 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Obviously a lot of work has gone into this list, just look at the history. I really don't know who other than the people working on the list would benefit from its existence. Who cares? So I think I'm inclined to vote for delete, but I'm going to bed now. You decide! --Jadriaen 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I consider that an article which has been worked on by a whole number of different editors over this time period (since June 2004) and has reached this advanced stage, has effectively achieved a community consensus, which is a major factor to be taken into account when assessing this Afd nom. Tyrenius 06:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep they are all referenced --Astrokey44 06:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep so much effort into this list! I agree with Tyrenius that time and number of editors on the page is suggestive of consensus -- Samir File:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg (the scope) धर्म 07:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are many other pages that have not been deemed to meet the criteria for inclusion, no matter how many editors have worked on them or how venerable they have been; the Draft Busts/Steals articles for various professional sports leagues, for instance. Granted, about half of them will pile onto this AfD and shoot it down, but it's still a mere list, unblemished by any actual content. RGTraynor 08:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting information, many of these are verifiable. I don't see why it should be deleted just because it's about fiction or popular culture. JIP | Talk 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the notion that the article having many editors should be given some degree of weight. However, with a few exceptions, the edits of the last year seem to be mostly drive-by additions. Edit history aside, I just don't see how someone could come across this article and find it useful. In the event that someone has an interest in fictional electronic games, there is no further context for 90% of what's listed here. I'm also a little concerned that it's not possible to have any reliable oversight of this list. ScottW 13:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. However much work has gone into it, it's still an indiscriminate collection of information, and that is something Wikipedia is not the place for. — Haeleth Talk 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Fictional electronic games? What's next, fictional names used in movies? --Hetar 17:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listmania indiscriminata rampans. Sandstein 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Random fictional objects from unrelated series. If that's not an indiscriminate collection of information, nothing is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JIP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful collection of information.  Grue  09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LC. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as interesting and useful per other comments here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - interesting, encyclopedic. Georgewilliamherbert 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm no fan of silly lists, but this is better than many. Runcorn 19:57, 15 May 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.