Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dragons in games

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragons in games[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO CTJF83 chat 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this material from List of fictional dragons because others had flagged that article as long and unwieldy and suggested splitting it into shorter articles. I do not vouch for the content which I merely moved. On the other hand, it is possible that an orderly list of dragons in games has encyclopedic value for purposes of comparative study. That is certainly one of the values of List of dragons in literature.

Amccune (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Because the topic of this list is so broad, it naturally leads to subjects within it that have no encyclopedic relationship with each other. WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO apply here. Them From Space 06:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As explained above, the list has been split from a larger list. If we decide to keep the information together then this is best reversed by redirection, not deletion as the article's title is a plausible search term. Please see our deletion policy and editing policy in which exploration of such alternatives to deletion is recommended. Deletion is a last resort, not the first option to reach for. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are fine on WP. If a person is interested in this topic the list could be useful. Almost every item has its own article so citing sources in this list should not be needed to establish notability. Any attempt to improve the list by sorting or removing items would involve original research and would be a major waste of time. Better let the dragon fans have their list and others spend their time on other matters. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly appropriate list article. If it contains only those relevant to Wikipedia articles it is not indiscriminate, but as discriminating as anything in the encyclopedia. It would not be a directory unless it included every possible one--they two rules are in this case just the same, and the article clearly passes them. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but decrapify The actual concept, a list of games of all times which feature dragons, is a completely understandable and relevant topic for a list. If it didn't exist I'd be inclined to create it. The problem is that either from the start, or somewhere down the line, it has been allowed to degenerate into a totally indiscriminate "there's a dragon, there's a dragon, there's a dragon" indiscriminate silliness. Those who want to know which games are actually focused on dragons are not served by this list, but that can be fixed through editing the article into something meaningful. Dragons appear in fantasy games no less than beefy blokes wearing leather nappies and wielding broadswords, but there are numerous games where dragons really are the main event, many of which doubtless aren't even on this pig's ear. Someone another 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figures; dragon video games from the top of my head which aren't in the list: Alisia Dragoon, Thanatos, St Dragon, Blazing Dragons and Little Puff in Dragonland. A few minutes rifling through game databases etc. would doubtless produce countless more. The problem here certainly isn't lack of relevant population. Someone another 01:15, 17 March 2010 (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.