Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of God of War: Ascension downloadable content

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. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of God of War: Ascension downloadable content[edit]

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

I would like some editors to give their input on how does this pass wp:GNG. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable, and although there's a lot of primary sources, those sources are confirming the release of the content. I personally believe this AfD is unnecessary and could have easily been discussed elsewhere before taking this measure. --JDC808 ♫ 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too excessive detailed. We don't generally summarize DLC in this fashion, and only call it out in prose if its notable (in limited cases, like the GTA IV episodes, it may even get its own article, but that's because it includes reception details). --MASEM (t) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess these could be AfD'd too, eh? (1, 2). They don't have reception and have a lot of primary sources. On top of that, far more detailed. --JDC808 ♫ 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an improper argument, though I'm not saying that the LBP DLC lists are appropriate. However, here, most of what this list is is DLC gear, which falls under GAMEGUIDE type stuff. Noting in the main article that special gear was offered, sure. But we don't need the level of breakdown here to cover that. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I wasn't saying that "because those exist, this should to", I was saying that "because this is being AfD'd for reasons stated, shouldn't those be as well?" In regards specifically to the contents of this list, this info was too excessive in the main article, which is why this list was made. To use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a proper argument, that's why other lists of DLC were created (such as LBP, Mass Effect, and all of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero ones). --JDC808 ♫ 06:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this, as usually, I feel that this sort of things is WP:GAMECRUFT or non-notable, but it really is well written and organized. Have the DLC received much in the way of coverage/review/criticism/etc? I'd be more inclined to lean one way or another if there was anything in the way of "Development" or "Reception" like content to be tagged on somewhere... Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found anything (reliable wise at least) on reviews/criticism, but there is some coverage (I'll find more and add it). There was some new stuff released today, so that may bring about some reviews soon. --JDC808 ♫ 00:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2013 (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.