Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console[edit]

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

Trivial listcruft which isn't suitable for this site. Also an improper page split. See this discussion: [[1]] for more information. To sum it up: the article creator (Xeno) decided to ignore consensus that the column wasn't notable in other lists. So he made this article as an incorrect page split. Also note: he refuses to accept anyone against the column in the first place, and acts like their opinions don't matter. Plus to top it off: he thinks the information "has" to be on Wikipedia no matter what, even though I pointed out the content is better suited for video game sites and/or wikis. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do remember to comment on content, not contributors. The bulk of your nomination statement seems to have little to do with the subject or deletion thereof. –xeno^talk 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the above debate has been archived, here is a link to it within the archives. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple WP:NOT items. It's a trivial collection of rather arbitrarily aggregated information. LotLE×talk 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what the above is meant to say? It is neither trivial nor arbitrarily aggregated, it has a definite inclusion criteria and it is important information with respect to the Console wars which are very real, and ongoing. –xeno^talk 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even begin to describe what this fails, but Wp:IINFO quickly sprang to mind. (Also, there are going to be a lot of games on this page if it stays.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem at all indiscriminate. The criteria for inclusion on this list are very clear. None of the examples provided of indiscriminate info seem at all relevant to the subject. –xeno^talk 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Is there any other Wiki that would accept this? If so, it might be kind of us to do a transwiki. Them From Space 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:NOT? –xeno^talk 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly encyclopedic information useful for folks wanting to research the exclusivity aspect of the Console wars. –xeno^talk 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~The resulting list would be far too difficult to maintain; this sort of thing is precisely what categories are for. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)~~ I apologise for misinterpreting the debate, so please disregard my original argument. Now, I realise that AfD debates normally focus on content rather than circumstances, but in this particular case it is necessary to address the circumstances behind the current situation. Originally this began as a simple discussion to decide if a particular column on particular articles was necessary. As a consensus emerged to remove the category, Xeno, an admin, objected strongly to the movement, but failed to provide a substantial argument as to why the column should be kept. Eventually when it came to removing the content, he created a POV fork in order to ensure that the so-called "useful" information would not be lost, an action for which there was no consensus. Consequently, I am proposing that the article be deleted until the current dispute is resolved, as the entire wiki should not have to suffer because of one sysop's agenda. There was and is no consensus for Xeno's actions, and his POV pushing has set a poor example for other editors. It is not up to one person to decide what is "useful", nor is there any policy, guideline or precedent which states that such material should be included. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list was already well-maintained as a column in the main list of games so your argument is unsound. –xeno^talk 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith please. Xeno was acting to maintain the Wiki. Also, what is AfD if not a discussion? You end up with a circular argument if you utilise "Delete until consensus is gained". AfD is here to gain consensus, it isn't just a vote after all. If anything, the content should be kept until consensus is gained, as it existed for some time prior to it being suggested for removal. --Taelus (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, Xeno may have acted in good faith, but his edits still appear to constitute POV pushing. If there is a consensus against something, it is wiser to accept the fact than to repeatedly state your opinion without basing it on solid evidence, which is what he appears to have done. As for your point about AfD, I understand that. I suppose what I mean to say is that Xeno has not properly explained why the article should be kept, and has not used strong evidence to support his reasons for creating an article without consensus. The consensus was to remove that column; creating a content fork without discussion then appears to be an attempt to bypass that. That is why I believe the article should be deleted. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed explain why the article (and before, the column) should be kept: the information is desired by our readers; is verifiable, notable, and encyclopedic; and facilitates further research into the console wars subject. –xeno^talk 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how Wikipedia suffers by having this article? Remember: WP:NOTPAPER. In fact, contra your argument, I would say that Wikipedia (and its readership) suffers by deleting this article. Note that it is now the number 1 Google hit for "xbox 360 exclusives" - the remaining hits being poorly maintained, out-of-date, 404'd. It has been viewed over 3600 times since creation. –xeno^talk 19:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming those people 1) care about the subject and article, and 2) actually found the article useful. For all we know, all of them clicked the link by mistake. Please do not base your arguments on such assumptions. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are reasonable assumptions, much more likely then the preposterous suggestion that they such an explicitly titled article by mistake. –xeno^talk 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, it is not trivial information, console exclusivity is a big topic and has been covered by several reliable major news groups, both gaming such as Gamespot and real world such as the BBC. It is entirely plausible a Wikipedia user would want to research into the topic, and this list is a benefit. Second, we shouldn't just delete things because they are difficult to maintain. In the long-term, since the Wikipedia advertising campaign showed we have scope going forward generations, is any of our content easy to maintain? I suspect in the coming decades linkdeath will be everywhere. We shouldn't delete to make our lives easier at the expense of the long-term goals of the project. Finally, this is not an inappropriate page split. The concensus was to remove information from one list to declutter and aid readability, thus a page split is the best option without simply saying "Oh the list is full. No more knowledge allowed on Wikipedia for this topic." It is assuming bad faith to accuse the article creator of making a point, he has not "refused to acknowledge others" otherwise there would be an edit war on the original article. He considered everyones opinions and boldly took this solution, which I believe is the best for the project. --Taelus (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's an article that gaming Wikipedians would definitely be interested in, it's well sourced, and well laid out. I get this sort of question all of the time from friends and whether a game is available on their console. In addition, merely googling for lists of console exclusives yields plenty of hits to make this notable. If there's a dispute, take it to dispute resolution. This seems like an appropriate fork that provided a synergistic solution to everyone involved in the discussion. In response to failing WP:IINFO, how does this article fail it any more than its parent article? Additionally there's a hint of WP:IDONTLIKEIT lingering here based on the original discussion and the new article's history page. --Teancum (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nominator says, this was recently created by a user who was pretty much the only dissenting voice in a debate to remove exactly this information from the List of PlayStation 3 games and List of Xbox 360 games. I won't go through the whole argument again here (the nominator links to it), but the consensus was very much against exclusivity info being included in the lists. Really, if you can't get your own way with article content, just accept it, don't go creating whole new articles to dump it in... I would also point out that the list continues to make heavy use of the misleading term "console exclusive" where the fact that some of these titles are not actually exclusives is arbitrarily dismissed in order to include them on the list, which is akin, IMO, to making stuff up. All that aside, as a list it's pretty indiscriminate - all that the entries have in common is that (most of them) were released on only one platform, which is not an important or defining point to any of these games - in fact it's pretty much irrelevant to the games themselves. I still don't really have a problem with the exclusivity info being in the original lists, but basing a whole list on it is too much. Miremare 05:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst exclusivity is not a defining point for a game, it is actually quite a significant factor in marketing and hardware sales. It is generally agreed within the industry that exclusivity has a strong correlation to hardware sales, and Microsoft stated that their exclusive that Halo series was key to their success with the Xbox brand. (References can be found in the parent article). Perhaps then this article needs a re-write and possibly a rename to give it more context? I have suggested this to the original creator. --Taelus (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a few massive franchises are significant in terms of hardware sales, such as the Halo and Gran Turismo series, that is a subject that should be covered in the articles on those consoles and games. Exclusivity has little to do with the fact that they sell - GTA4 and Modern Warfare 2 have sold a hell of a lot of consoles for both Sony and Microsoft while being exclusive to neither. Also being an exclusive, even a very good one, doesn't necessarily equal sales for either the console or the game - take for example the PS2's critically lauded Ico, which nobody bought. The vast majority of these games are not, and will not become, system sellers. Anyway, to sum up the objections to this from WP:VG again, the number of platforms a game is available on isn't really important to anyone apart from people trying to sell consoles, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Miremare 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find you several sources that indicate the exclusive expansions for GTA4 translated into system sales for the 360. –xeno^talk 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this useful? No. I like my sugar with coffee and cream (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — I like my sugar with coffee and cream (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to elaborate? You haven't explained why, and haven't pointed out what Wikipedia criteria this fails. --Teancum (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would like to point out that we should discuss the merit of the article based on content, not the background of its creation or the contributor who created it. From a purely content point of view, why is this list not a suitable split from its parent article console exclusivity? It would detract from style to list such things on the parent article, yet it helps provide background, examples and additional information for users who would like to see such a list. --Taelus (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have been, it just happens that the background of its creation is also relevant. It wasn't a split from console exclusivity but from List of Xbox 360 games and List of PlayStation 3 games, where each list has/had a column to indicate how "exclusive" a game is to that platform. I'm not sure what console exclusivity is about really... it seems to be saying that some games are exclusive to some consoles and that helps sell them, which would be more usefully covered in that console's article, IMO. At the very least a change of title to something like Exclusivity in video game marketing or somesuch, as the current title implies that it's the consoles themselves that are exclusive. Anyway, off topic... Miremare 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do feel free to perform a page move, and improve the article, as it is bound to suffer slightly from my "economist" style of talking and layout currently. However, I still believe the references establish the notability of this concept as it does have usage in mainstream media and the industry. Additionally, whilst it was a page split from those lists, why not call it a sub-topic of the article on console exclusivity if this helps its context and relevance? It shouldn't matter where the article came from from a technical point of view. Still, if concensus is to delete, would there be any objections to me userfying the list and attempting to develop it into some material regarding exclusivity from this generation of gaming? I understand the concerns raised by the opposition, but I still feel the information here has some use, even if it needs to be re-written and merged into another article. --Taelus (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - The information is a useful basis for further research. I suppose the information could be merged by adding additional columns to existing lists. SharkD Talk 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it's been addressed before, but there seems to be a lot of user dispute regarding the split, which can be handled over at WP:DISPUTE if any of us get out of control -- which thankfully hasn't happened yet. Just remember it comes down to whether Wikipedia benefits from the article and the criteria that defines that, and not the circumstances from which the article was born. --Teancum (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Teancum & Taelum & Xeno Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2009 (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.