Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with DRM

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with DRM

The list has zero encyclopedic valve. Even if it has little bit of encyclopedic valve the article will be highly unmaintainable. There are other sites (use search engine) which has this sort of list. SkyWalker (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Potentially useful list (I doubt I'll be purchasing any of these) but this is an overbroad and unmaintainable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no claims to what makes these games have DRM notable. TJ Spyke 05:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way, way too broad. List could potentially include most recently-published video games, depending on your definition of DRM. Not even Superman could maintain a list like this (not that he'd want to, I guess). Graymornings_(talk) 08:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most recently published games have some form of copyright protection or Digital rights management. Such a list is completely unmaintainable. _ Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable, and unsourced. Since DRM has negative connotations with many, claiming a game has DRM when it does not (either by mistake or intentionally) could be dangerous. The fact games are copy protected is NN as this dates back to the 1970s. 23skidoo (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Which game doesn't? SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of notable games without DRM would be a much more interesting article. This one is pointless. JulesH (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs sources, but there is no reason to think these cannot be found - the article has only recently been created! The list is not unmaintainable, nor is there concerns of notability, so long as the list is kept to games that also have their own Wikipedia article. Even if it includes most games, it is still useful to categorise the type of DRM. Given that we have massive Lists such as List of blogs, Lists of websites or Lists of atheists, there is clearly not a maintenance problem. The list is useful - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument, nor should I have to search out other possible sites that might exist (can I edit and contribute to those sites?) Mdwh (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said we don't like it? It may be useful, but not here. MuZemike (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SALAT and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This list is just too broad and unclear to be encyclopedic. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 21 December 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.