Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames

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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 2 minigames

Proposed for deletion via WP:PROD, somewhat pointy and almos certain to be contested, but unquestionably a valid rationale: unsourced fancruft. We really could do without these endless directories compiled form primary sources for the sole benefit of people who already know it anyway, because nobody else will ever care. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, listcruft: whichever you want to call it: it doesn't need a place on Wikipedia. It's pretty pathetic how the other list pages turned up no consensus. Hopefully the second nomination (in the future) for them will lead to better results. RobJ1981 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guy, please do not unnecessarily introduce POV into what may be a valid nomination. There is no need to make presumptions about the interests of millions of individuals that are sure to be false (e.g., "for the sole benefit of people who already know it anyway", "nobody else will ever care"). Sure, millions of people will not read this article, but millions of people do use Wikipedia, and for thousands of different reasons. And moreover, at least one person--the creator of the article--cares. That said, I am withholding a suggestion until I have a chance to review and consider the article. -- Black Falcon 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am withdrawing my comment based on the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames. I suggest withdrawing all nominations regarding the Mario Party minigames lists and, if necessary, renominating them all together after 1 or 2 months or so. -- Black Falcon 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is not a game guide. a game guide would give you hints, tips and cheats and walk you through every aspect of a game, which this article does not. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (author of article)[reply]
(SPEEDY)STRONG KEEP (Notable) and re-direct to the AFD on Mario 3-7, in progress. Also see closed AFD on Mario 8, within the last 48 hours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC).Lee Nysted 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Mario 3-7 was withdrawn as of today.Lee Nysted 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy based on withdrawal of Mario 3-7 earlier today.Lee Nysted 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as 3-7 were kept. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis the nominator fails to have provided a strong basis for deletion. Their entire argument for deletion seems to hinge around it being fancruft, which is simply not a good enough rationale. So on the basis of the assumption that you are assumed innocent until proven guilty I'm supporting keeping this article. Mathmo ^Talk 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I will have you know that others DO want to know about the minigames, the minigames are what made me choose to buy Mario Party Advance over a different game I really wanted. Henchman 2000 09:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fancruft. A list of minigames is unnecessary. If they are notable or ground-breaking they should be merged into the main Mario Party 2 article. Going by the precedent in WP:Fiction, Wikipedia's goal is to summarize and be reasonably short, not give detailed descriptions. So far the arguments in keeping just amount to wanting it for the sake of the children, someone using it as a substitute for Gamefaqs for minigame info, and that being poorly written, unreferenced list of unnotable minigames isn't enough to delete when it very well is. Chevinki 09:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Fancruft argument against lists has been tried in the Mario 3-7; it failed to be persuasive. The 3-7 nomination was withdrawn. The same argument was used in the Mario 8 and the result was "no consensus." The list stayed. Lee Nysted 15:05, 7 March 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.