Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:02, 5 September 2006

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

26 August 2006

List of beat 'em ups

Reminder to all participants. Stay calm. Stay civil. --tjstrf 01:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of beat 'em ups

In my opinion, this needs to be undeleted. There was a claim that it is redundant because of the existence of a category for the same purpose, but what about List of Mario games by year or List of Final Fantasy titles? They both have a Category of Mario and FF games. But the thing is that a Category cannot list games without pages - if List of Bomberman games didn't exist, that would prevent Bomberman Land Touch! (an upcoming Nintendo DS Bomberman game) from being noticed by any means through Misplaced Pages, because it lacks an article. I'm willing to bet that there are many beat 'em up games without articles, so why not bring it back to fill up the gaps not filled in the category? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close Recent DRV led to userfication, currently at User:Luvcraft/list of beat 'em ups. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? Just because it can be a user subpage does not mean it thusly should not be an article. If I were to move that Final Fantasy list to a user subpage of mine, would that mean I could delete it? No. It should be an article as much as most game lists out there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, correction. It wasn't a DRV, it was a request to userfy. So for this one, Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, DRV doesn't offer new information. Filling out redlinks can be done from user space. ~ trialsanderrors 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • What's the difference between having it on a user page and having it be an article, other than the fact that it's on a user page? Would a problem exist because of it not being a user subpage? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• overturn I'm the original nominator and on further reflection, this is not completely redundant with the category because it lists soem things which will probably never have articles. I'm fine with re-creation if all the games wihtout articles are given references to show that they exist and are members of the genre. Ace of Sevens 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Userfication or projectification would be fine if the list was merely being used as a quick page for writing these articles, but I don't believe that was the justification for including it. Also, lists and categories are not redundant in the case of large genres, only small categories. --tjstrf 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote changed to neutral. --tjstrf 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • So how was the AfD closure invalid? ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Where did anyone say that? The content exists, what harm is there in putting it in an article where people can actually see it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Absent valid concerns about inappropriate closure or new information the "overturn"s are nothing but belated AfD votes. This is WP:DRV, not WP:AfD. See Zoe's quote above. This doesn't preclude recreating the list in a form that provides more information than the categories, e.g. game summaries, release years, etc. But the community has made a decision on the list as it stood, and reconsiderations or belated votes don't change that consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 21:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So basically, this is the one and only deletion review that isn't a vote. All of those people who want to overturn the AfD aren't late voters? Why is it that when people disagree with the AfD in this, they are claiming that the AfD was invalid, but what are we doing differently? I'm bringing up an argument that was not presented at the AfD. They have every right to vote to overturn an AfD if they think that the article should exist. Are you actually claiming that there can be and always will be only one consensus for this, that the consensus to overturn this article doesn't count because there's already one? Why not apply that (il)logic to everything, and only allow one FAC for each article? Why is it that when a consensus is formed on this one article, that you get to apply the logic that the consensus can never be overturned exclusively to this one article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • "The community has made a decision on the list as it stood, and reconsiderations don't change that consensus"? Sorry, I don't follow your argument there. The community is made of people, and the consensus was formed from the votes of people, and now you're telling us that those people changing their minds cannot alter the consensus? That makes very little sense. We're talking about a consensus, not the Law of the Medes and Persians. By definition, a consensus changes if people reconsider. Frankly, I don't care either way whether this article is restored or not, but your attitude in this DRV is going a long way to convince me that it should be. — Haeleth Talk 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD (closed correctly IMO). Eluchil404 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We have lists for all sorts of things that are also categories that would never even be considered for deletion, this list is clearly not redundant - how is this list, which has more content than the category that the category might not be able to ever have, redundant? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The only content I see that can't be handled by a category are the red links (sub categories can be used for series etc.). I think that lists of red links are rarely if ever appropriate in the article space since they should either be turned into articles which can be included in the category, deleted as nn, or described (rather than linked) on the list page itself. That other similar lists have survived AfD is less relevant than that this list did not. Without new evidence the deletion is likely to be endorsed on that basis, rather than my personal deletionism with regard to lists. Eluchil404 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • One question: Without a list to guide them, many editors most likely would't know which beat 'em up-related articles still need to be created, so how can they "be turned into articles which can be included in the category"?--TBCTaLk?!? 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • How are they not notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Redlinks in a list whould either be expanded into articles or removed from the list on the basis that they are non-notable and therefore don't deserve an article. While this process doesn't have to be instantaneous, it doesn't make any sense to me to keep a list just so that people can see the probably notable (but we can't be sure without an article) redlinks listed rather than a category wich only includes the (poresumptively notable) articles which already exist. Eluchil404 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I was canvassed for a vote on this review. -- Mikeblas 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You're not the only one: Special:Contributions/A_Link_to_the_Past. ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You make it sound like I did something controversial. How, exactly, would I be advantaged by telling people who voted to delete the article (the majority of the voters in the AfD) that it is up for undeletion? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn, the list is useful for Misplaced Pages development purposes, in that it can contain red links whereas categories cannot.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The list has been userfied and can be accessed from userspace (or moved to an apropriate wikiproject) for the purpose of finding out which game articles should be created. To be kept an article must be useful to readers rather than editors. Eluchil404 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But what about new users of Misplaced Pages who don't understand what the user and project spaces are? Also, sometimes article readers could want to create articles as well.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How does that pare against your own vote in the AfD? Delete as listcruft, made redundant due to Category:Beat 'em ups--TBCTaLk?!? 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait... then so I'm not allowed to change my mind or have second thoughts? Also, note that the AfD was from around two months ago, and since then a lot of my views on article notability and deletion have changed.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps he didn't consider that the list has content not covered in the category. Can I ask you why you're interrogating people who vote to overturn? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Because DRV is a discussion about the closer's decision. So far I've seen reconsiderations of editor's opinions and other assorted nonsense, but no argument why the closing admin got it wrong, or what new information might change the course of the AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • You don't think the fact that a number of people who voted to delete have subsequently changed their minds and wish they'd voted to keep might have changed the course of the AfD? The problem is that it is likely that the article would have been kept if it was AfD'd now, but if it is recreated in any form that is substantially similar to the form that was deleted, it will no doubt be speedied as recreated content without being put through another AfD. Hence the reason why it was brought to DRV, apparently in the hope that something could be done here that would at least prevent a recreated version from being speedyable.
          Describing people's good-faith attempts to improve the encylopedia as "nonsense" is not very pleasant, even if they are admittedly failing to guess at all the procedural minutiae of the ballooning Misplaced Pages bureaucracy. — Haeleth Talk 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I have no problems if people change their minds later, I have problems with their attempts to hold the closing admin accountable for their own indecisiveness, and to burden the "ballooning bureaucracy" without even bothering to read the highlighted instructions. If they change their minds and want to improve the encyclopedia, they can do what I proposed: Create a list that is not redundant to categories. Any kind of additional information will do. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Will you stop pissing and moaning? What is with you? Do you just despise this article and chew anyone out who votes to have it undeleted? And what are you talking about? Why should we create a list that is already created?
          • Additionally, where the Hell do you get the idea that people changing their mind is holding the closing admin accountable? The admin looked at an AfD and said "hey, the majority wants it to be deleted" and *gasp* deletes it. Nobody is holding the admin accountable for anyone, so stop showing yourself down our throats and telling us what we are saying, what we are doing and what we are thinking. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
            • WP:CIVIL. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Fine. I'll be civil, if you stop harassing everyone who votes to overturn the AfD result, as if it's a bad thing to do, and respond to the facts I brought up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
                • The box under Purpose at WP:DRV says clearly: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). None of the overturn voters have offered anything that addresses either of these points. Instead we get "I've reconsidered", "My vote is more valid than others", or stuff that already had an airing at the AfD. If you had actually any interest in improving this encyclopedia you'd already started editing the userfied version rather than ignore process and insult editors who try to uphold it. ~ trialsanderrors 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • Wait, so you're saying that if an article is AfD'd, it cannot be recovered by presenting an argument why it should have been kept. Did you notice that in the DRV desc., it says that you can do a deletion review if you have information pertaining to the debate? Are you trying to tell me that the fact that the article is not redundant to the category (a proven fact) is not information? Because it's pretty obvious that it's related to the article. Now, will you stop trolling anyone who disagrees with you? How does disagreeing with you turn into them thinking that their opinion is more valid? The fact that you exclusively attack people who vote in favor of this article and apply that laughably false statement to them, but when someone votes against this article, all you can do is nod in agreement doesn't exactly make it seem like you value objectivity, and would love it if someone who voted keep voted to uphold the AfD. Would you please stop libeling people who happen to not think what you say is always correct? Kind of makes you look really weak and immature. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • No, it's not "information", it's opinion. Also, I assume in your favor that you don't know what libel means. ~ trialsanderrors 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
                      • Uh? You're putting words in their mouths that is negative. You are claiming that they are claiming that their votes of more value. Show me where they have ever said that. If you can't, then what should I call what you're doing? You're making claims about people that are untrue that are negative. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn because my keep vote provided enough reason to not delete the article.  Grue  16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• overturn because this is not completely redundant like said by ace of sevens Yuckfoo 00:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If a Wikiproject wants to keep the list of redlinks as a reference then that's fine, but there were sufficient delete advocates (with only one keep) to justly characterise this as conosensus. Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Second closure, this is getting us nowhere. Also, change vote to neutral, since after re-reading the DRV policy I am undecided as to whether this is a valid AfD challenge or mere disagreement. --tjstrf 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You may notice that nearly all delete "votes" were based on a false assumption that this list is redundant with category. Since it wasn't, these delete votes should've been discarded by the closing admin.  Grue  18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I did indeed notice. Whjich is why I specifically addressed the issue of the redlinks. The problem here is that redlinks are not assessed for encyclopaedic notability, so there is nothing stopping someone from adding their dfan-made Flash game into the list; a Wikiproject team is likely to stop that, and a category will see the article deleted as non-notable. I don't see the list providing a benefit to outweigh the disadvantage. Is there really a big problem of notable video games without articles? I'd say the problem was rather the other way around... Guy 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• • But JzG, you forgot that you don't care about other peoples' opinions... oh, right, I forgot, it's only when you don't like what they say that you choose to not acknowledge them as worth anything.
  • The fact of the matter is that there was an argument not presented at this AfD. Just like how you said that the Bowser vote is invalid because it had only one view. Why is it that I cannot present this argument, JzG, but when you want to, you can just decide that a vote does not exist because you don't like the result? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• The real problem here is that not only wasone of your own, Steel, in favour of keeping the dab page at bowser, so were all the other who came to the debate from outside of the restricted locus of the Nintendo article's Talk page. Also, we provided numerous arguments from external sources, whereas none of those who advocated the Nintendo meaning actually cited any verifiable evidence whatsoever for the Nintendo usage being "most common", despite your repeated assertions and our repeated requests for you to provide same. So it appears that the one who won't listen to others' opinions in this case is in fact you. Guy 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Valid AfD. The argument between list/category is an old one, and was likely in the mind of every commenter and closer at the AfD. No genuine reason to overturn is given here. Xoloz 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If that is so, why are several of the former deleters in favor of overturning the delete result? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, valid AfD. We've been through this before ad nauseam; stop beating a dead llama. Categories have the advantage of being self-maintaining, and pages have the advantage of more advanced layout (as in the Mario/Final Fantasy examples--which hasn't been used for this list, therefore the category is functionally identical. Garrett 07:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And? So because it does not have it, it should not get the chance to have it? If we operated under such logic, would we have no list of Mario games or list of Final Fantasy games? This list is, in no way conceivable, identical to the category for the simple reason that half of the list is not even COVERED by the category, and likely never will be. The Mario and FF lists were both the same as this list - they had NOTHING but a list of games that were redundant to the category. Are you saying that this list cannot become as good as those two lists? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Kd. The AFD got it right. —Encephalon 08:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, argument at AFD leaned towards keeping. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)