Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmarks in the Sim City Series

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks in the Sim City Series

Listcruft, no significance outside of the game whatsoever. For another similar page written by the same author, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonders in civilization IV. RedThunder 15:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Purely in-game value. RayAYang (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into a table. It doesn't need to be independently notable, it's a valid spin off (a subarticle given an own page for space or presentation reasons). Or would you prefer the list to be put in the main articles? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly in-game value. Neuro√Logic 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Include a few examples in a series article since there are some real-world influenced buildings here. --MASEM 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a SimCity player, I like the sentiment, but this is absolute listcruft. Demolish and rezone. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extend and turn into table. This list has nothing to do with game guides — it doesn't help anyone to win the game or whatever. Game itself includes a couple of real-life landmarks and a couple of fantasy ones. As a reader of an article about SimCity game, I'd like to know about these relations — which game landmarks have real-life counterparts and link directly to these ones. If I was an avid SimCity gamer, I'd found it helpful to be able to quickly find this information, without long and tedious putting any particular game object name into wikipedia's search, looking for it, if it's real or not. In fact, it's almost no-one except Wikipedia who can fulfill this purpose: no gaming-related encyclopedia project has as much data about various landmarks as Wikipedia. I guess that's the great educational value of Wikipedia and we must use it to the best extent possible: if someone just would found a pretty-looking building in SimCity and would turn to reading serious articles with history topics about these landmarks — it's that what we're trying to achieve? --GreyCat (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldoze — Nonverifiable information and original research. MuZemike (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not true, it's perfectly verifiable information and not an original research. The games were published and are available to the general public as all other media, books, articles, etc. --GreyCat (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be shown to readers via reliable (not primary) sources. You must provide sources as to where this is coming from. Even in that case, as I regretfully did not mention in my rationale for deletion, you also have to display some out-of-universe (i.e. outside of SimCity and video gaming as a whole) relevance — in essence, showing that this is not, as several others have validly claimed above, not merely in-universe game guide material. MuZemike (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't mislead others about sources. WP:RS that you cite clearly states that reliable sources are not required to be third-party. In fact, primary sources are just as well are acceptable. Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources states that "Primary sources can be reliable in some situations [...] for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction". Here we're dealing exactly with work of fiction, and it's perfectly acceptable to just reference the work of fiction itself for a "list of characters" (i.e. here a list of objects one can build in game). Whether or not there's out-of-universe relevance (I think personally that it's not WP:GAMEGUIDE, as you may have read above), please don't mislead yourself and others about sources. --GreyCat (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like the other article mentioned in the nom, this list consists of game guide-type information. In each of the Sim City articles, a few of these landmarks can be used as an example of what players can build, which is already done in the SimCity 3000 article. However, this list grouping all landmarks from three games (landmarks in SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 64 and SimCity Societies are not included) in no particular order, with no further information, is not encyclopedic. Somno (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the article stands, it is a mere list of buildings, without any indication of the role in the games., There is a good deal to say about them in context, but is would need to be said in more detail. This article is not likely to be used for that purpose, and if we do this right, we might a well start over.DGG (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the issue isn't so much sources, as notability. Have the landmarks in the game, as a subject, received any coverage in reliable, third-party sources? Is the coverage significant enough to warrant a seperate article? In addition, our WP:WAF guidelines apply here - the article has nothing interesting to say. Marasmusine (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. It's verifiable enough but who cares? I would say the same about list of landmarks I can build with blocks or legos. I'm not seeing the usefulness of this information I'm afraid. -- Banjeboi 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a gameguide. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the three comments above --Teancum (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2008 (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.