Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in video 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 Delete. - Glen 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearms in video games[edit]

List of potentially unlimited size that would include every form of firearm ever in a video game, from blunderbuss and muskets to modern machine guns, with a sub-list of each video game said firearm appeared in. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Allen3 ^talk 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Elf | Talk 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Gamelistcruft Bwithh 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catergorize Note Computer_and_video_game_weapons already exists, if desired, make a Real weapons subcat. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in films. —Mitaphane _talk 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane _talk 01:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-wield shoot it. Unmaintainable. - CheNuevara 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mitaphane. --UNHchabo 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infinite list. Danny Lilithborne 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frag it. A list without a limit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a BFG per above. Garrett^Talk 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per related AFD at List of firearms in films Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frag as per above. MER-C 08:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Headshot per above. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, next look into the other pages created for this type of things, mostly to be found in Category:In popular culture. --Deon Steyn 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vaporize with plasma rifle there need not be such a list. If the weapon is notable, it will have its own article or be mentioned in the article of the game. Most fictional firearms don't need to be mentioned however. Altair 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculously huge list to the point of uselessness.

Wickethewok 18:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ramsquire 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too broad. 23skidoo 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disintegrate with Atom Blaster (Type: Cannon; Class: Level III only) as above Marcus22 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pulverize! per nom. YechielMan 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles were created after a few people didn't want to see information about "X in popular culture" included in firearms articles, where such a section would describe its depictions in movies and computer games. I don't support the existence of this single massive list, since it's utterly unmanagable and provides minimal information, but it would be nice to have popular culture information included back into the articles. Something like the MP5 or AK-47 could use a mention of its ubiquity in certain roles, if we can find sources to support it, while other weapons like the Beretta 93R could benefit from a mention of prominent roles, like Robocop. An indiscriminate list of every occurance is pointless, but there should be some information back in the articles, especially now that this sorry excuse is gone. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted keep) In what part of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is a sorted table of hashed entries disallowed? Many of you may find this information useless, but what about people actually looking for this? First of all, anyone who wants this information back on Wikipedia will simply add it back into the articles on those movies, games, and firearms. I don't want that, and I imagine none of you do either. I'd much rather have a sentence saying "This has been prominently shown in many films; see Article X," rather than "This has been most prominently shown in Movie X," as this invites the same kind of "list addition" as seen in WP:SPAM. I think this kind of page is necessary so that we don't end up with these huge lists on all sorts of other pages spread across Wikipedia. I know, I did a good amount of work, such as cutting down the "Popular Culture" section in Steyr AUG. This format is compact. It works. The old system did not work, and that's what we'll return to if this article is deleted. -- My other big issue: where in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is this kind of information listed? Lists of this sort are kept elsewhere, in order to keep the information kept somewhere in a concise manner. --UNHchabo 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. The only purpose of WP:LIST it might conceivably meet is the information source one; however all the information appears to violate WP:NOR - even the apparent citations are original research! GRBerry 12:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gib It with a BFG9000 (which is not in the list, BTW) ... along with List of firearms in films, for the reasons above and in the other AfD. --72.75.117.73 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split into seperate articles for each firearm, or for each firearm manufacturer. Johntex\^talk 03:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fully agree with GRBerry. - Pernambuco 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why does this matter at all? No point whatsoever, really...
Delete Another list? More listcruft, and WP:NOT again. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:10, 23 September 2006 (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.