Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional games (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is clearly against deletion and the keep arguments are reasonable (mainly reliant on WP:NLIST), although I'll tag this as "maintenance needed" as the concerns about overly broad inclusion criteria and other maintenance problems have significant support here as well even among people who argue for keeping. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional games[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too broad of a list. There are hundreds of fictitious games, and it is constantly growing. Furthermore, what makes these notable? It serves no encyclopedic purpose. And imdb is practically the only source in the whole article. Similar articles have been deleted in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (3rd nomination)) JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Move to Fictional games per below discussion. The current list is full of unsalvageable crap that is unsourced or poorly-sourced and which fails all the stuff I said earlier. However, the sources given below appear to indicate that the concept of a fictional game (if not an indiscriminate list thereof) is notable. (Also, in response to concerns given below, WP:LISTCRUFT and its relative WP:FANCRUFT are not themselves reasons to delete, but they are useful extensions of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is policy.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Update: I've purged the list of all the crap. I'm still leaning towards moving to a general Fictional games article, but I'll leave the community to debate the merits of what's left. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be in favor of that for the exact reasons that you said. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was renamed, unclear how much of the list should be kept or under what inclusion criteria, there is room on Wikipedia for some listings of fiction games. AfD is not a good place to figure this out. -- GreenC 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here is an assessment of the votes in the previous AfD:

From 1st nomination

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable.
— User:JDDJS (nominator)

After skimming the contents, I see that this is a concern — the size and contents of the list lends weight to the WP:SALAT concern of being too broad.

The list has value for navigation and is notable per WP:LISTN - see here, for example.
— User:Andrew Davidson (Keep)

The source cited looks very unreliable. I doubt that this has actual naviagtion value since many of these games aren't even mentioned in the respective articles about the works, or anywhere else.

A long list of non-notable fictional games, it is of little use to the reader. However it allows new editors to learn how to make contributions, in a way that does no harm.
— User:Maproom (Abstain)

The delete half of this argument is essentially the same as the nominator's, and this nominator's. As for the keep half, we are not a place for trying things out.

Lists of this sort are useful for the reader in finding related topics, and in finding interesting novels, and providing context. Some of these are significant elements in major works.
— User:DGG (Keep)

[Keep] as is per above.
— User:Jj98 (Keep)

Not a policy-based argument to keep. The final remark is probably false; I haven't looked that closely, but most of these items are the exact opposite.

[M]ight constitute an example farm.
— User:108.216.20.135 (Stubify)

If we trimmed this, there would be very little content left.

In conclusion, none of the Keep arguments hold substantial weight. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's a complete joke of an article that belongs on some fan website and was created over 14 years ago when standards on Wikipedia were much lower. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's examine the nomination. "Too broad" is a silly complaint because WP:BROAD tells us that it's not a reason to duck a topic. If there are hundreds of entries then this is a sign of success – that there's lots of material to cover and that editors are willing to write them. WP:NOTPAPER tells us that Wikipedia has "no practical limit" and so size is not a reason to delete. Then complaining about the sourcing is daft when there are over 160 citations. Sources are only required for controversial material and surely everyone knows about fictional games like Poohsticks, Quidditch and Rollerball. What the nomination fails to do is address real reasons to delete such as WP:LISTN. There are, in fact, entire books about fictional games and here's the result of a quick browse:

Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 151 sources (not over 160 like you said), 130 of is it imdb, which is not considered reliable, 4 are wikis and one is just blank. That only leaves it with 16 actual usable references. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron — Rescue list deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Well if we just cleared all those and left 16 sources. It would be a "more sources needed" but not "unsourced". Nothing inherently wrong with more sources needed in an article with 16 sources. Those 16 demonstrate it is possible to source the article. -- GreenC 16:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other sources, they're all just primary sources. Which does nothing to show notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources posted above by Andrew demonstrates topic notability. You may be confusing notability of fictional games the concept (topic of the article), with individual items in the list which generally only need to prove they exist, primary is sufficient though secondaries would be good to if they exist. -- GreenC 17:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, his sources show the idea that of Fictional games might be notable. Not an indiscriminate list that includes every single instance of a work of fiction making up a game. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the only article on Wikipedia about fictional games [redirect]. Concerns about sourcing, renaming, inclusion criteria, cleanup etc.. should be done via talk page discussions. AfD asks "is this topic notable", should we have any article about fictional games? The Independent, The Hindu, "Digital Games as Tools for Scholarly Research" (pg. 398). The concept of fictional games is real and often discussed. -- GreenC 16:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per policy, we have RS attesting to the reliability of thr topic, and we have notable examples of the topic, so there are no valid grounds for deletion. LISTCRUFT is not a deletion criterion, and the answer to that would be GOFIXIT. I might personally prefer a sourced article on the topic rather than a list, but deletion would be a move in the wrong direction. Newimpartial (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, plenty of books discuss this as Andrew D. has brought out, that said, suggest that not every fictional game mentioned be included, only those that are notable/have at least one reference ie. included in one of the books listed above/is a key plot point in a notable work, be included. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised it's necessary to make an extended argument: these are all key games in notable fictions. There is another way to handle them, which is to maker individual articles for the individual games. I would probably support this, but the usual practice had not o split out such fictional elements. This list is a good way of dealing with what some consider items with some degree of ntoability, but less than that of a full article. It is explicitly one of the alternatives to deletion listed in WP:N, and one of its more sensible provisions. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree with the concept of LISTCRUFT, this article needed pruning, which I see an editor has done (although pruning might be too mild a term to use for what was done), rather than deletion. Seems to pass WP:LISTN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 07:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but restore some of the arbitrary slash and burn with a sprinkle of RS fertilizer, not that is required per WP:LISTN. Perhaps later splitting up the list in a few lists would help, with a first divide between "games" (mental) and "sports" (physical). Another might be commercial parodies (or is it parody commercials?) for sketch/talk shows (e.g. SNL, Kimmel,…) where it isn't integrated into a larger work. Not all of the books listed above work here, Literary Gaming is more about literature in games, than games in literature. In spite of that, I'm sure many other sources can be found. StrayBolt (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid list article, as others have already stated is clearly passes WP:LISTN. Dream Focus 12:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.