Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo Power Covers

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 -Selket ^Talk 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Power Covers

Contested prod of an unencyclopedic list. --Finngall ^talk 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, indiscriminate information. Just a list of which games appeared on which cover of this mag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I think this list is an obvious example of "unencyclopedic". – sgeureka ^t•c 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unencyclopedic trivia with no notability. The magazine itself may have notabilty, but this does not extent to a list of indiscriminate info such as this. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant discussion of article's topic in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of trivial info, with no sources and no indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Entirely unencyclopedic collection of trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, and verifiable list concerning a magazine with real world notability). Aside from the fact that trivia is encyclopedic. Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:PERNOM, and WP:JNN are not compelling reasons when even in a worst case scenario a non-hoax, non-libel, non-copywright violation article like this could easily be redirected to Nintendo Power and still keep the contribution history public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The notable and/or 'important' aspects of the NP covers that separates itself from other magazines, if any, can fit on the NP article itself. Even if that was done, good luck finding non-primary sources. « ₣M₣ » 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items 1-3 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LC is of course, an essay, expressing one persons private view of what should not be in WP. The only meaning of "unencyclopedic" is "IDONTTHINK it should be in WP"--opinion, not argument. The items in a list of this sort just have to be appropriate content, not notable individually--this is much better as a compromise than individual articles. DGG (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it make you happier if I copied and pasted the arguments from that page which I wish to incorporate rather than just pointing to them? Stifle (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia and redirect to Nintendo Power. --EEMIV (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only notable cover was the Castlevania one. Martarius (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is it just me, or is this a list of magazine covers? If this one is kept, I'll be submitting my list of cola bottle labels. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly! Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:DIRECTORY, which is a reason for deletion. This article is a directory because it lists all issues of a magazine without commentary or discussion. Such lists can be kept if they are useful for navigation (per WP:BTW and WP:L), but as none of the list entries here qualify for their own article, it is not useful for that purpose. Also a specific directed criticism, as well as constructive feedback, for the Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles above, who is perfectly entitled to his views, but should recognise a page that -clearly, and unambiguously - should be deleted. If pages like this should not be deleted in your opinion, your inclusionist views border on being indiscriminate rather than qualified inclusion with loose qualifications. The latter is defensible, the former is not. User:Krator (t c) 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the number of deletes seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions shows your interpretation is simply off. I am very discriminate in which articles I choose to defend and which I believe are indefensible. This page clearly and umabiguously should be kept. Real consensus would indicate that beyond this AfD, all those who made good faith efforts to improve the article are also in the keep camp. If pages like this should be deleted, then Wikipedia will become less useful and interesting, i.e. what makes it worthwhile and a real contribution to the encyclopedic tradition. While we can argue for a benefit to human knowledge in maintaing such a list, we cannot really argue that anything is gained by removing it. Anyone who wants to criticize Wikipedia for having factually accurate content such as this article is really just making an "I don't like it" argument. If I've learned anything from history, it is that stifling knowledge is not a good thing and in this case is counter to the whole point of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am here to build to this compendium of human knowledge, not defeat its purpose by diminishing it when these articles are created in good faith and are being worked on. All I see in many of these AfDs are subjective claims of stuff being unencyclopedic. Are you willing to argue to keep more frequently? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content seems to be a partial copy of this page. The content there is published under the GNU Free Documentation Lisence, but having said that this information seems to be more suited to that location. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I cannot see any real reasons why even in a worst case scenario a redirect without deletion that would at least maintain editors' contribution history could not occur as a compromise. We gain nothing from an outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you have a problem with wikipedia deleting things at all, you ought to take this up at the policy level. As it stands now, we use deletion for articles that don't belong on wikipedia. We don't redirect it if it shouldn't have been here in the first place. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article however belongs on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it doesn't belong on wikipedia, then there is no value in a redirect. There's no such thing as a "compromise" to save an unencyclopedic article. Randomran (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This encyclopedic article does belong on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. This is a discussion for whether this article belongs or not. It isn't a philosophical discussion about why we should use redirects to preserve the value of an editor's history. Good luck, Randomran (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
by the way... delete as per the above comments. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that "per the above" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unencyclopedic, unreferenced (thus maybe inaccurate). Wikipedia is not a directory. There are thousands of magazines out there, imagine if we do this with all of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd be a better, more comprehensive reference guide. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only purpose of this article is to be a glorified trivia section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 19 May 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.