Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of open-source city-building 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. — The Earwig (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of open-source city-building games

[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)

This list is really poorly written and is almost totally dependent on Github for citing the existence of entities on this list. This list also feels largely redundant as a broader list, List of city-building video games is already in existence and is much more useful to a reader as it provides higher quality details at a quick glance. Theprussian (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:LISTN. License type and genre are also an odd intersection. IceWelder [✉] 15:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - LISTN problem, and nothing to merge as they're already covered in the main list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Masem (t) 17:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Theprussian and Rhododendron are mistaken, the List of city-building video games does not contain these items. I could see adding other sources such as fossgames or tjfree or freegamer etcetera for review content, but would keep Github as useful links to the games. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does. And to be clear, when I say "already covered" I'm referring to the notable examples with articles about them, not the ones that merely exist (which shouldn't be covered in either article -- very few lists on wikipedia are intended to be exhaustive). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite its name, this is just a classic "list of X in Y" that don't meet the policies for list articles. There's nothing particularly notable about the intersection of city-building games that are also open source. If someone wants to add them to the list of city-building games, then they should do that. But we don't need a separate list just for the licensing status of the games. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2021 (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.