Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese role-playing games by genre

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. If somebody (looking in User: Hobit's direction) wants to undertake finding sources and adding them to the list, I'll be happy to restore this to draftspace for you. But, in the meantime, there's clear consensus that this does not meet our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese role-playing games by genre

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

All JRPGS are role-playing games by definition. Listing by "genre" here means listing by its in-universe setting, which seems more like a violation of WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTCATALOG to me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As, by my count, 68% of the items listed on this list don't have (and would doubtfully every be eligible for) their own WP articles, this appears to be an attempt to circumvent the GNG. Also appears to violate WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTCATALOG. Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oyi. Lists are supposed to mix things with and without articles. And this isn't GAMECRUFT (read the link and point to the entry you think is the issue if you disagree). Not catalog might apply, but no more than "list of MLB teams" would. Eh. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like WP:OR and the list is too potentially large to be viable or encyclopedic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree each entry should be cited (even to a primary source). Feel free to pitch in (or remove things that you can't cite). Hobit (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they are individually cited, then it should be kept. However, you shouldn't say it should be kept and then do no work involved to prevent deletion. This is just a mass listing of unsourced and non-notable games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, he can, because we do not delete content when the issues are fixable. See policy at WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, not to mention WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am of the opinion that the list is overly broad and indiscriminate, so it cannot possibly be "fixed" through properly citing the listed games. You are literally talking about taking all JRPGs and sorting them by (assumed) genre. This is better dealt with by a category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not the best list article in the world, but seems reasonable. I've addressed the arguments for deletion above. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing (in my view) WP:LISTN (Yes, I know how it's worded about Lists of X of Y). Completely unsourced list with no evidence that this is discussed as a set by reliable secondary sources, and no examples of such sourcing have been presented by the Keeps. Categories should suffice for the few notable items on the list. The genres themselves are unsourced, meaning the list does not meet WP:V, and genres are notoriously subjective besides. Proving that a game exists isn't enough for this list, you have to prove that the game is a particular genre, and that will result in essentially 99% of the list being removed anyway. A better list would simply be List of Japanese role-playing games with perhaps a table, of which genre could be a column, however sourcing is still an issue. As such, the triple cross categorization ("Japanese" crossed with "role-playing games" crossed with "by genre") is doubly unnecessary since there isn't even a base list that isn't "by genre" -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds more like a request for renaming, if the only real issue you have is how this is organized or whether the genre classifications are correct. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is fundamentally just a list of creative works by country of origin (that therefore passes WP:LISTPURP), complementary to Category:Japanese role-playing games per WP:CLN. Complaints about how it is organized by genre, or whether it should or shouldn't include nonnotable entries, are matters for ordinary editing and discussion to resolve. Sourcing for any notable entries is of course possible by definition, so that too is a fixable issue. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes LISTN. Szzuk (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and organising by genre is an example of both WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how this is a suitable article. Video games are categorized by gameplay, and not plot/setting. This, JRPGs in this case, are more often described as being a "strategy RPG", or a "action RPG", etc. The article has next to no sourcing, as articles on this subject won't call a game a "fantasy RPG", or a "Sci-Fi RPG", especially for non-notable games that litter this list. 08:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:LISTN, possibly WP:OR as well. There are absolutely no sources presented in the article demonstrating whether this is notable or not. Also fails the non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SportingFlyer talk 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Ajf773, I value WP too much to let it become a mere catalogue of things WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Den... (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2018 (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.