Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo DS games
The result of the debate was keep [added by Andre🚐 22:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats]
This article, and many other "List of"... articles [1] could be far more efficiently handled through the existing category system. This list is just the tip of the iceberg, but seeing as it's just a list of Wiki links (effectively a manually-maintained version of the Nintendo DS games category, and a list of articles-to-be, rolled into on), I thought it was a good example. Sockatume 20:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rather than putting this on VfD, you should say on the List and the Category's talk pages that you want to redirect the list to a category, wait to see if anyone objects, then simply do it(make, parent and fill the category, then redirect the list to the category). VfD watchers will bless you for not adding to VfD. ;-) JesseW 21:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. A category will not suffice as the deletionists will then nit pick each entry under that category. A list will allow the greatest opportunity for an accurate and complete list and is most ideal under these circumstances. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- COMMENT do you really want EVERY SINGLE GAME to have a Wikipedia entry? 132.205.94.190 23:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)#
- I certainly do Kappa 00:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC).
- Lists are different from categories: for example they can redlink to members that don't have articles yet but need them, they can mention (without linking to) minor members that don't need articles at all, short notes can be put next to entries to explain what they are... I strongly object to anyone dismantling a list with any red links unless there is consensus the links don't need articles. Kappa 00:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: Lists are the only way to handle items that are not individually worthy of an article. DCEdwards1966 00:17, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep if it's maintained cleanly. Wyss 00:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, lists have many advantages over categories. - SimonP 01:40, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I would frankly like to see more lists and fewer tiny articles about inconsequential games and suchlike. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment Well, if users are willing to keep the entire list up to date and accurate, it seems fair enough, but I'd be somewhat concerned about a list article which may well turn into something several hundred entries long. IF the list is annotated so that inconsequential titles (those not seen as worth an article by themselves) are briefly explained, rather than simply redlinked, then I no longer have a problem with it. Sockatume 02:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Redlinked or not, keep this. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 22:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This serves a purpose, like List of NES games or List of SNES games. Andre (talk) 22:58, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I don't like the idea of these lists of games since they're extraordinarily difficult to maintain, but they do serve some purpose, I suppose. This one certainly has an advantage in that it can be kept up-to-date in real time, unlike the lists for older platforms, which had to be recreated and are, as a result, incomplete. Aerion 02:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Why not just link to a different site whose job it is to make lists of video games? For instance, GameFAQs would probably suffice, as it has a list of all games, walkthroughs for them plus message boards. Or a different site, or both. It would mean that Wikipedia's users would not have to update the list every time new games were released and the lists on dedicated game sites are more likely to be more accurate. Then if a user wanted more information about a specific game they could enter the name into Wikipedia (like I did with the Legend of Zelda entries and the Nintendo DS entry).