Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Windows Vista game compatibility

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Vista game compatibility[edit]

Previous AfD reached no consensus two months ago; most keep votes were based on the article being well-sourced and in need of improvement. It's in much worse shape now, with a fair bit of blatant WP:OR. -/- Warren 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is next to impossible to maintain a high quality of such a list. This would become the crash database of every other Vista gamer. --soum ^talk 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not what Wikipedia is for, and would be difficult to maintain. --Nehrams2020 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Certainly is difficult to maintain and remove OR, and despite the likelihood of being a crash database; this list is and would be useful, and I consider that's what Wikipedia "is for." Yes there is original research there, but decent Lists aren't built in a few ~~weeks~~ months. *shrug* I don't even own Vista; I just know it would be relevant to people. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Disclaimer: I created the list as part of my incorporation of DirectX 9 EX into Wikipedia articles.[reply]
Delete Seems to violate WP:NOT as well. Whs itc hy 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Garrett^Talk 10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt is very useful information, there's no denying that but it is very WP:NOT - X201 10:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a useful list. Shanekorte 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all "useful" things belong in an encyclopedia. Morgan Wick 21:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no other lists on the internet as comprehensive. Shanekorte 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I had a look at what it was like 2 months ago, and although it's gotten worse in terms of sourcing, it's gotten better in terms of usefulness: back then it was mostly composed of games with no issues, which would (hopefully) be most of them and quickly become unmaintainable; at least now it's confined to games with known issues. -- simxp (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for one thing I don't like the way the list is specifically limited to "a list of older games designed for DirectX 9 (or earlier) that will install on Windows Vista and run (or almost run) on its DirectX 9 EX. Please list only games with known issues..." (the description itself seems rather contradictory IMO), which seems rather arbitary, as why only list games that use a certain API (rather than say OpenGL or indeed MS-DOS)? Plus without sources we can't be certain that entrys in the list aren't just a single editor's issues with their own systems configuration etc. Plus the theorectical issue that to be 100% accurate, we would need sources for every single game every to ever have used "DirectX 9 or earlier" (if that's the criteria) and it's compatability with Windows Vista to be sure the list is accurate. FredOrAlive 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comprehensive application compatibility simply isn't encyclopaedic and would do better as a few specific examples in the Windows Vista and/or Criticism of Windows Vista articles. While this would make an interesting wiki project (Wikia hosts the similar Classic PC Games project), Wikipedia is simply not the place for it. Garrett^Talk 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It strikes me that such a list will tend to vary from system to system. There are some "issues" there which I simply don't experience on my own Vista system. It's going to be very hard to maintain accuracy, even if there are sources available. 80.193.211.68 15:32, 9 June 2007 (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.