Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)

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 speedy keep. Nominator doesn't present any rationale for deletion and not outstandig !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)

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

2 page split from unmanageably large Index of MS-DOS games where a 26 page split already exists (starting at Index of MS-DOS games (A) with nav between pages); 2 page split remains unmanageably large. GILO A&E⇑ 04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 26 pages are too much. 2 pages no. If you want I can make 4/3. Alancito10t 15:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.173.150 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, on what grounds do you want this deleted? Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was divided by letters (A, B, C, D, etc.). But it was difficult to read. So i thought that if I put it in only one article, it were be more easy to read. It was, but it was heavy (about 10-15 sec to load). So i thought to split this article in two. Index of MS-DOS games (A-M) and Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z). User:Alancito10t 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.211.160 (talk) [reply]
Procedural Close - This should not be discussed in an AfD. Salvidrim! 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no actual reasons to delete.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2012 (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.