Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames/old

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Suggest letting the dust settle on this one before anyone attempts to nominate any of these articles again.--Isotope23 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 3 minigames

WP:NOT#IINFO, section 4: "Instruction manuals" excludes video game guides. This is just that--a list of minigames contained in a video game. Black Falcon 05:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

27 hours before this AfD nomination, half these articles were involved in an AfD that was closed. The result was no consensus.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames McKay 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

modified result above... it was no consensus, not keep--Isotope23 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- My sincerest apologies. I misread the date of the discussion as 21 February 2006 instead of 2007. I have stricken the three articles that were considered just two days ago from this nomination. I am also exploring the possibility of withdrawing my nomination altogether. -- Black Falcon 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: Of the six lists included in this AfD, only the last one, List of Mario Party 8 minigames, is referenced. However, lack of sources is not the reason I'm nominating these lists for deletion (and I more generally do not view lack of sources as a valid reason for deleting articles). -- Black Falcon 05:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. They are listcruft that belong on a gaming wiki. RobJ1981 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: All are notable, minigames are a key part of MP and needs attention. Oh, and RobJ, there is no such thing as a video game wiki. Henchman 2000 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I present StrategyWiki, where these articles (or expanded versions thereof) will be wholly appropriate -- saberwyn 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Henchman. Notable, citing reliable sources. Can be written encyclopedically. I'm sure you remeber that from the last debate. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (Author of article)[reply]

- MP3-7 are unsourced. MP-8 is only sourced because someone has said "this minigame will be in the as-yet unreleased MP-8", and even then, not all entires are sourced. -- saberwyn 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Notability inclusion guideline states - "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. (emphasis mine)" No such sources are cited in any case bar MP 8, and even there I am iffy. The Wikipedia:Attribution core policy also states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Neither of these are met at this time, and I personally have my doubts on the matter if they are verifiable, even though they are true. Delete for not meeting a core policy and a major inclusion guideline, in addition to the claims leveled in the nomnination. -- saberwyn 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP (Notable subject matter) The entire topic (GAMES) should be expanded and backed up with strong and reliable sources. This is the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. It is about "time."

Those of us blessed with children, in any school, in any place in this world, know full well that this topic deserves a large and bright spot... in any encyclopedia. We have an obligation, in my opinion, to provide the world with current reliable information. If we lose the children, we lose the world. Help to make this institution more reliable for our schools? Sounds like a good idea to me.

I am a single father of 3 girls. (ages 11. 15. and 23.) I love Wikipedia; use it all the time. My children cannot use Wikipedia (as a factual reference) in our school system in Illinois, more often than not, because of either,

1. Lack of pertinent (up to date) content, or
2. lack of reliable sources, or
3. The ability of vandals to change the truth, at will. (This is the worst one in my opinion.)

I prefer that my children come here for knowledge and an understanding of the world than many other places they are likely to go on the web.

Finally, I mention "the children" because it is timely to consider that most companies with a vision for the future, plan for repeat users well into the next generation, or more. (e.g., I cite Apple, Inc. as a primary example of this.)

Please forgive me for using nearly the exact text I used in the last AFD (Mario 8) debate about lists of games. If I have done something wrong, please teach me. Lee Nysted 14:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Canvassing
assuming good faith he didn't know this is a no-no, but the closing admin may want to consider this and weigh the opinions of Lee Nysted and Mckaysalisbury (if that editor chooses to participate) accordingly.--Isotope23 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, canvassing is generally frowned upon. But actually, I was going through all of the changes that have been made to the pages I watch since I last visited yesterday (afternoon?), and the list was modified before my user page was, so I haven't even seen my user page yet (yeah, I've got "You have new messages (last change)." at the top of my page.) Also, seeing as how there was an AfD about this that closed yesterday(?) that I was heavily involved in, I think it's reasonable to assume that I'll be heavily involved in this one too. No, seeing as how this is a second nomination and traditional procedure hasn't been followed, It'll take me a bit to formulate my formal response, so I'll be back. McKay 15:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said "may"... I'm not suggesting you or Lee be ignored outright because of the apparent canvassing. It's just a notice for the closer to be aware that this happened.--Isotope23 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I recant a little. I claim that AGF or not, Henchman did nothing wrong. According to an arbitrator in an ARBCOM ruling about canvassing "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." He posted to two people's user pages. People who watch the article in question, and who participated in basically the same AFD yesterday. McKay 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Nysted comment on canvassing: Thank you, Isotope. Here is the part of our policy that I think is most applicable in this case. I quote the arbitration text: From topic: Canvassing @ Wikipedia
An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."
Lee Nysted 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to take this too far off topic, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames.--Isotope23 15:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Speedy | Strong] Keep Half these pages survived a nomination for deletion 27 hours before this nomination for completion. Is it really worth the AFD resources to go through these things again? If you'd like (and apparently you do), I'll do a summary of the previous discussion (found here
WP:RS. There are thousands of lists in wikipedia, so just beacuse it's a list doesn't mean that it should be "burninated". I'm copying a summary post from earler, I may add more summary later. McKay 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
1. Notable Are there any Reliable sources that are about the minigames in Mario Party 8? No, not directly. As far as I'm aware, no one has written an article about those minigames. They have included talk about the minigames in their articles about MP8 (how can one not?) Does that mean that the list should disappear? I think that wikipedia policy says that the list should remain. Why do I say that. I think that everyone should take a look at
  Minor Slytherins should stay but this article shouldn't? I could give a bunch of reasons why Minor slytherins is actually less valuable, but I'm not going to bring them up just to prove a point. McKay 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
2. Encyclopedic So when I tried to take a step back and see why people were fighting this issue, I came up with this: Hmm, saying that the wiimote is being used as a lasso is kinda saying "how" to play. The page is filled with stuff like this. How did I miss it? Can the article be rewritten without such "how"s and still remain encyclopedic? the answer to the second question is: probably not, but the first question is much more important. A simple answer to the first question is well, other people appear to have missed it too, because no one has ever said that this article is a "how" article While that's a decent answer, it doesn't really explain "why" it was missed so many times. Then it hit me. The real answer is the "how"s were missed in the article because the "how"s in this case are encyclopedic. Why? Because the Wii is so novel. The Wii developers are able to do things that haven't really been possible before. "what? People can move the wiimote around like a Lasso, and the characters onscreen can mimic their movement?" This information is notable, because it's the first time this has happened (Now I understand that saying "first" in this case may not be backable by reliable sources, but saying that it's used as a lasso can be, and because it's unique, it's encyclopedic, because it's a piece of the history of video games.) This means that How-to guides (instruction manuals) can be encyclopedic as long as it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, I think that Wikipedia backs me up on this case too:
  the Michelson–Morley experiment shows "how" those two scientists performed their experiment (and therefore how one could duplicate their results), but it is obviously encyclopedic, because their experiement was the first of its kind. It's encyclopedic, because it changed how we as a people thought.
  
  SpongeBob SquarePants (partially because I wanted to grab a random example with something I'm not familiar with, but didn't know where to start. Then I remembered that henchmen and bowsy might read this, and quickly thought of this example) tells "how" the show was conceived and "how" it became popular (Broad appeal, Merchandising and Marketing). These are encyclopedic, because they're the history of the show.
  
  So, How to play a game is not an indiscriminate collection of information if the information is itself encyclopedic. How to beat Bowser in Super Mario 64 is probably not encyclopedic, but one of the strange ways to beat NetHack might be (notable because it's strange and interesting to readers even if they haven't played the game, because it's part of the adage "The DevTeam Thinks of Everything") McKay 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that another Mario list is also nominated for deletion... Mario 2. Can we combine all lists in the same AFD ?Lee Nysted 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The arguments above, in spite of being thorougly though out and well-written, still largely amount to POV arguments like
Arkyan 17:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, see Rayman Raving Rabbids#Mini-Games for just how much granularity should be dedicated to a set of minigames. See also: AfD/List of Rayman Raving Rabbids minigames. Nifboy 20:36, 28 February 2007 (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.